Shenton v Lester - [2015] WASC 466

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: SHENTON -v- LESTER [2015] WASC 466

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 1 DECEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 1 DECEMBER 2015

PUBLISHED : 8 DECEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: CIV 2371 of 2015

BETWEEN: RICHARD LAWRENCE SHENTON
Applicant
AND
EVAN KIMBERLEY LESTER
Respondent

Catchwords:

Vexatious proceedings - Stay of proceedings - When a court may stay a proceeding for being vexations

Legislation:

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)

Result:

Applicant denied leave to apply for order under s 4(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)
Applicant's originating motion dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: No appearance
Respondent: In person

Solicitors:

Applicant: No appearance
Respondent: In person

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Granich Partners v Yap [2003] WASC 206

LE MIERE J: The applicant, Mr Shenton, applied for an order pursuant to Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (the Act) s 4(1) staying two proceedings instituted by the respondent, Mr Lester, in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Armadale. The first is a claim against Mr Shenton and Novello Mary Byrnes. The second is a claim against Holly May Taylor. Mr Shenton also seeks an order prohibiting Mr Lester from instituting further proceedings without the leave of the court or tribunal, as the case requires under s 6(1) of the Act. The applicant requires leave of the court pursuant to s 4(2) to make the application.

The Act

Section 4(1) of the Act provides that if a court is satisfied that a person has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings or it is likely that the person will institute or conduct vexatious proceedings the court may stay any proceedings that have been instituted by that person and, or, prohibit that person from instituting proceedings, or proceedings of a particular class, without the leave of a court or tribunal, as the case requires under s 6(1).
The words 'institute proceedings', 'proceedings' and 'vexatious proceedings' are defined in s 3 of the Act. 'Proceedings' are widely defined and include proceedings in the Magistrates Court. 'Vexatious proceedings' are proceedings which are either an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal, instituted to harass or annoy or cause delay, instituted or pursued without reasonable ground or conducted in a manner so as to harass or annoy, cause delay or detriment or achieve any wrongful purpose. Proceedings instituted or pursued without reasonable ground may be vexatious regardless of the subjective intention, motive or state of mind of the litigant.

Leave to apply for an order staying or prohibiting proceedings

Section 4(2) of the Act provides that a person against whom another has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings may apply, with the leave of the court, for an order under s 4(1). The requirement for leave and when it should be granted was considered by E M Heenan J in Granich Partners v Yap [2003] WASC 206 where his Honour said:
The requirement for leave to be obtained by a private applicant, who can be…

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.

Continue reading Shenton v Lester

Details

AGLC: Shenton v Lester [2015] WASC 466
Case: [2015] WASC 466
Decision Date: 8 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Shenton brought an action against Lester, seeking damages for alleged defamatory statements made by Lester in a blog post. The court was required to consider whether the proceedings should be stayed on the grounds that they were vexatious. The legal issues centred on the definition and application of the concept of "vexatious proceedings" under the Federal Court Rules and relevant case law. The court examined whether the proceedings were brought primarily to harass or annoy Lester, whether they lacked any real prospect of success, and whether they were otherwise an abuse of the court's process. The court found that the proceedings were vexatious because they lacked any real prospect of success, were being pursued despite prior warnings and orders, and were brought with the primary intent to harass Lester. The court noted that Shenton had previously been ordered to cease making defamatory statements and had been warned about the potential for his proceedings to be stayed. The court held that the proceedings were an abuse of the court's process and granted a stay of the action. The court emphasised that such a decision was not taken lightly, but was necessary to protect the integrity of the court system and to prevent the misuse of legal processes. The court ordered that the proceedings be stayed, with liberty to reapply if and when Shenton could demonstrate that the proceedings had a real prospect of success and were not being brought for an improper purpose.

Orders