Russell White v Mallon-White - [2019] VSC 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT
(COMMON LAW)

S ECI 2019 00001

RUSSELL WHITE	Plaintiff
v
ELKA MALLON-WHITE & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	SIFRIS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 January 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Russell White v Mallon-White & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 1

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Self-represented litigant – Refusal by Prothonotary to seal document as originating process – Plaintiff seeking direction to Prothonotary to accept document – Documents irregular in form – Application refused – No direction given to the Prothonotary to accept the proposed originating process – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 27.06.

HIS HONOUR:

On 10 December 2018, the proposed plaintiff, Mr Russell White, sought to file with the Prothonotary two documents being a Form 5A Writ to which was annexed a Statement of Claim, and a Form 5C Originating Motion (‘the documents’) to commence proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Following correspondence from the Prothonotary on 13 December 2018, on 18 December 2018 Mr White attempted to file an amended form of the Form 5C Originating Motion.

On 19 December 2018, the Prothonotary refused to seal or accept the documents from Mr White on grounds that:

(a) Were the documents to be sealed the proceeding so commenced would be irregular or an abuse of process of the court pursuant to r27.06(1) Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (‘the Rules’) (‘Ground 1’); and

(b) The documents had not been prepared in accordance with r27.06(2) of the Rules (‘Ground 2’).

In regards to Ground 1, the Prothonotary considered that:

(a) Mr White sought to “continue” existing proceedings already on foot in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, parts of which appear to have already been appealed or challenged to the Family Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit Court and the High Court of Australia. The Supreme Court of Victoria cannot ‘continue’ a proceeding already underway in another court;

(b) Mr White appeared to seek to bring criminal charges against the majority of the proposed defendants. Criminal charges cannot be commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria except in circumstances specified in s 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic);

(c) Mr White appeared to seek that everything related to his existing proceeding be ‘cancelled’. While the Supreme Court of Victoria has supervisory jurisdiction over other inferior courts, the proper way would be to appeal or bring a judicial review application against those decisions;

(d) Mr White requested an intervention order be granted against several of the proposed defendants. An application for an intervention order is required to be made to the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria or the Children’s Court as appropriate.

(e) Mr White sought that a Federal Police investigation be undertaken. A request for an investigation should properly be made directly to the Federal Police.

(f) The matters set out in the documents are embarrassing in a legal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Russell White v Mallon-White and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] VSC 1
Decision Date: 14 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Russell White v Mallon-White involved a dispute between the parties, with Russell White acting as a self-represented litigant. White sought direction from the court to the Prothonotary to accept his document as originating process. The Prothonotary had previously refused to seal the document due to its irregularities in form. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Prothonotary's refusal to accept the document as originating process was justified under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Prothonotary's decision was in accordance with the relevant rule, which requires documents to be in a form that the court can readily understand and process.

The court held that the Prothonotary was within their discretion to refuse to accept the document as originating process due to its irregularities. The court noted that the document was not in a form that was readily understandable and did not comply with the requirements set out in the rules. Therefore, the Prothonotary's decision was justified, and the application for direction to accept the document was refused. The court did not grant any direction to the Prothonotary to accept the proposed originating process.

In summary, the court dismissed the application, finding that the Prothonotary was correct in refusing to accept the document as originating process due to its irregularities. The court's decision was based on the clear provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, which require documents to be in a form that can be readily understood and processed by the court.

Orders