Samootin v Shea

In Samootin v Shea, the applicant, Mrs Samootin, sought leave to appeal a decision of the court. The respondent, Ms Shea, contended that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mrs Samootin's application for leave to appeal should be dismissed as an abuse of process, given that her lack of standing to seek the relief claimed had been determined in earlier proceedings. The court also considered its inherent power to restrain proceedings that constitute an abuse of its jurisdiction.

Campbell JA reasoned that the Supreme Court possesses an inherent power to prevent the abuse of its jurisdiction. His Honour found that the proceedings brought by Mrs Samootin were an abuse of process because they sought relief in circumstances where her lack of standing had already been definitively established in prior litigation. The court applied the principle that international treaties to which Australia is a signatory do not form part of Australian domestic law, which was relevant to the underlying substantive claims.

The court ordered that Mrs Samootin's application for leave to appeal be dismissed as an abuse of process. Furthermore, the Registrar was directed to take specific steps should Mrs Samootin file further court processes seeking leave to appeal from a list of specified earlier decisions, including vacating return dates and referring the matter to a judge to determine whether to fix a new return date or invite Mrs Samootin to show cause why the proceedings should not be summarily dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process.