Rowe v Schultz

[2016] QCA 59

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rowe v Schultz [2016] QCA 59

PARTIES:

CHAD EVERETT ROWE
(appellant)
v
ALISON JANE SCHULTZ
(respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(intervenor)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6129 of 2015
SC No 3077 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2015] QSC 143

DELIVERED ON:

Order delivered ex tempore 4 March 2016
Reasons delivered 11 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2016

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Delivered ex tempore on 4 March 2016:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS – where orders made by a judge of the Trial Division included that the appellant: (1) be declared a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia; (2) be prohibited from instituting proceedings in Queensland without first obtaining leave under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld); and (3) proceedings in the District Court of Queensland and Magistrates Court of Queensland against the respondent be stayed – where the appellant filed a notice of appeal on 22 June 2015 against all orders made by the learned primary judge – where, in his written submissions, the appellant conceded there were good grounds to determine that he is a vexatious litigant – where, at the hearing of the appeal, the appellant informed the Court that his appeal was to be limited to the scope of the order that he be prohibited from instituting proceedings in Queensland without first obtaining leave under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) – where the appellant contended that the order should be limited to proceedings against the current respondent and Emmanuel College, and therefore a substituted order to that effect be made by the Court – where the appellant did not identify any specific error of a kind described by their Honours in House v The King – whether the appeal should be allowed

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 6(2)

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
The respondent appeared on her own behalf
D D Keane for the intervenor

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
The respondent appeared on her own behalf
Crown Law for the intervenor

1. MARGARET McMURDO P:  I joined in this Court’s order dismissing the appeal for the reasons given by Gotterson JA.

2. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA.

3. GOTTERSON JA:  On the application of Alison Jane Schultz, the respondent to this appeal, orders were made by a judge of the Trial Division against Chad Everett Rowe, the appellant, on 29 May 2015.  Those orders are as follows:

   “1.The applicant has leave, pursuant to s5(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act2005 (“the Act”), to apply for vexatious proceedings orders;

   2.It…