Skinner v Garland Hawthorn Brahe Pty Ltd Melbourne Office

[2020] FCCA 3667

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Skinner v Garland Hawthorn Brahe Pty Ltd Melbourne Office [2020] FCCA 3667

File number(s):

MLG 3821 of 2019

Judgment of:

JUDGE RILEY

Date of judgment:

13 November 2020

Catchwords:

CONSUMER LAW – PROTECTION – application for applicant to be prohibited from bringing proceedings in this court – Supreme Court of Victoria having previously declared the applicant to be a vexatious litigant.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 s 88Q(2)(b)

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 r.13.03C(1)(c)

Number of paragraphs:

5

Date of hearing:

13 November 2020

Place:

Melbourne

Solicitor for the Applicant:

None

Advocate for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Garland Hawthorn Brahe

Advocate for the Respondent:

John Price

ORDERS

MLG 3821 of 2019

BETWEEN:

GRANT SKINNER

Applicant

AND:

GARLAND HAWTHORN BRAHE PTY LTD MELBOURNE OFFICE (ACN 144 515 613)

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE RILEY
DATE OF ORDER:	13 NOVEMBER 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application in a case filed on 4 November 2020 be dismissed.

2.Pursuant to s.88Q(2)(b) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, the applicant be prohibited from instituting proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Revised from transcript

JUDGE RILEY:

1. In this case, the respondent seeks an order pursuant to s.88Q(2)(b) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 that the applicant be prohibited from bringing proceedings in this court. The applicant was declared a vexatious litigant in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 13 May 2013.

2. The applicant brought proceedings in this court on 4 November 2019. He failed to appear to pursue those proceedings and, accordingly, the application filed on 4 November 2019 and the application in a case filed on 5 December 2019 were dismissed on 6 December 2019 pursuant to rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.

3. On 18 March 2020, the applicant filed an application in a case seeking to reinstate those proceedings. Again, he did not appear when that application in a case was heard on 8 April 2020 and the application in a case was dismissed.

4. Approximately seven months later, on 4 November 2020, the applicant filed yet another application in a case seeking to reinstate the original proceeding. He did not explain why he had not appeared and did not explain the delay in seeking to reinstitute the proceedings. He has appeared today but has not said anything to resist orders that the application to reinstate be dismissed and that he be prohibited from bringing further proceedings in this court.

5. It seems to me in all the circumstances of this case that the applicant does not properly utilise court proceedings and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application to reinstate and to prohibit the applicant from instituting further proceedings in the future. There will be orders as sought by the applicant.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Riley.

Associate:

Dated:       13 August 2021