Legal Research
Cases
Siteberg v Maples

Siteberg v Maples

Case [2010] NSWSC 1344 26 November 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Siteberg v Maples [2010] NSWSC 1344
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 23 September 2010 and 17 November 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
26 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Ball J

DECISION: 1. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings so far as those costs relate to the application to set aside the adjudication determination of Mr Les Keady made on or about 22 February 2010;
2. The proceedings so far as they seek an order pursuant to s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 be dismissed;
3. The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings so far as those costs relate to the application under s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - application for vexatious proceedings order pursuant to s 8 Vexatious Proceedings Act - whether proceedings are vexatious - whether vexatious proceedings were instituted or conducted frequently - meaning of "frequently". WORDS AND PHRASES - frequently

LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Attorney General of NSW v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008
Jones v Cusack [1992] HCA 40; (1992) 109 ALR 313; 66 ALJR 815
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (No 1) (1980) 147 CLR 35

PARTIES: Siteberg Pty Limited ACN 052 317 414 (Plaintiff)
Bruce John Maples (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2010/89224

COUNSEL: Mr S Benson (Plaintiff)
Mr T G Feerick (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Eugene Lepore & Associates (Plaintiff)
Frontier Law Group (Defendant)

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BALL J

26 November 2010

2010/89224 SITEBERG PTY LIMITED ACN 052 317 414 v BRUCE JOHN MAPLES

JUDGMENT

Background

1 These proceedings concern an application to set aside an adjudication determination obtained by the defendant, Mr Maples, against the plaintiff, Siteberg Pty Ltd, under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 together with an application under s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 for a vexatious proceedings order in relation to Mr Maples.

2 The proceedings, so far as they concern the adjudication determination, have been resolved on the basis of consent orders setting aside the determination, although the question of costs of that part of the proceedings were reserved. Mr Feerick, who appeared for Mr Maples, accepts, however, that Mr Maples should pay Siteberg’s costs of these proceedings so far as they relate to the adjudication determination. I will say something more about the adjudication determination application shortly. The application under the Vexatious Proceedings Act remains to be determined.

3 Siteberg is a non-residential building maintenance and renovations company. Its directors and shareholders are Mr Tenish and his wife. Since 2008 Mr Maples, either in his own capacity or on behalf of a company known as Atco Building Structures Pty Ltd, has commenced a number of legal proceedings against Siteberg, following the…

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 Siteberg v Maples

Details

AGLC: Siteberg v Maples [2010] NSWSC 1344
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1344
Decision Date: 26 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings involved an application for a vexatious proceedings order against a party, under section 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Siteberg, sought to have the proceedings brought by the respondent, Maples, declared vexatious. The primary dispute centred on whether the proceedings were vexatious and whether they were instituted or conducted frequently, with particular focus on the meaning of the term "frequently". The court had to determine whether Maples' actions constituted vexatious litigation and whether the frequency of the proceedings met the statutory threshold.

The legal issues included the interpretation of the term "frequently" in the context of the Vexatious Proceedings Act, and whether the proceedings brought by Maples were vexatious. The court had to consider the nature and frequency of the litigation brought by Maples, the relevance of the term "frequently", and whether Maples' conduct met the statutory criteria for vexatious litigation. The court also needed to assess whether Maples' actions were baseless, frivolous, or otherwise an abuse of the court process.

The court found that the term "frequently" in the Vexatious Proceedings Act meant more than occasional or sporadic instances. It required a showing of repetitive or habitual litigation behaviour. The court determined that Maples' proceedings did not meet the threshold for being considered vexatious, as they were not frequent in the statutory sense. The court emphasised that the term "frequently" implied a pattern of behaviour that was more than occasional or isolated. Maples' actions, while possibly repetitive, did not demonstrate the habitual nature required by the Act. Consequently, the application for a vexatious proceedings order was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders for costs. The decision highlighted the importance of understanding the statutory language and the need for a pattern of behaviour to meet the threshold for a vexatious proceedings order.

Orders