Storry v Parkyn (Vexatious Proceedings Order)
Case
•
[2024] FCAFC 100
•31 July 2024
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Storry v Parkyn (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2024] FCAFC 100
[2024] FCAFC 100
31 July 2024
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court, the appellant, Ms Venetia Louise Storry, an undischarged bankrupt, faced a vexatious proceedings order after being deemed an "indefatigable litigant." The court considered whether to prohibit her from instituting proceedings in the Federal Court without leave, given her history of numerous litigious actions that consumed significant judicial resources. The Full Court, having noted Ms Storry's extensive history of vexatious litigation, proposed an order under section 37AO(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). Ms Storry was given the opportunity to be heard and requested an oral hearing to contest the proposed order. The court appointed an amicus curiae to assist, and both Ms Storry and the amicus provided written and oral submissions.
The legal issue revolved around whether it was appropriate to make a vexatious proceedings order against Ms Storry. Section 37AO of the FCA Act empowers the Court to make such orders if satisfied that a person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings. The court must not make such an order without hearing the person or giving them an opportunity to be heard. The Full Court considered Ms Storry's conduct in various proceedings, her compliance with orders, and the overall impact of her litigation on the court system. The court determined that Ms Storry had indeed frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, justifying the imposition of a vexatious proceedings order.
The court concluded that it was appropriate to make the proposed order prohibiting Ms Storry from instituting any proceeding in the Federal Court without leave. The order was made pursuant to section 37AO(2)(b) of the FCA Act, and Ms Storry was prohibited from initiating any proceedings without first obtaining leave under section 37AR of the FCA Act. The decision was based on the extensive evidence of Ms Storry's vexatious litigation and the need to protect the court's resources from further unnecessary proceedings.
The legal issue revolved around whether it was appropriate to make a vexatious proceedings order against Ms Storry. Section 37AO of the FCA Act empowers the Court to make such orders if satisfied that a person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings. The court must not make such an order without hearing the person or giving them an opportunity to be heard. The Full Court considered Ms Storry's conduct in various proceedings, her compliance with orders, and the overall impact of her litigation on the court system. The court determined that Ms Storry had indeed frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, justifying the imposition of a vexatious proceedings order.
The court concluded that it was appropriate to make the proposed order prohibiting Ms Storry from instituting any proceeding in the Federal Court without leave. The order was made pursuant to section 37AO(2)(b) of the FCA Act, and Ms Storry was prohibited from initiating any proceedings without first obtaining leave under section 37AR of the FCA Act. The decision was based on the extensive evidence of Ms Storry's vexatious litigation and the need to protect the court's resources from further unnecessary proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Vexatious Proceedings Order
-
Jurisdiction
-
Limitation Periods
-
Abuse of Process
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Victoria v Taylor [2025] VSC 120
Cases Citing This Decision
36
Kelly v UNSW
[2025] NSWDC 24
Kelly v UNSW
[2025] NSWDC 24
Towns v Central Coast Council
[2024] NSWDC 399
Cases Cited
41
Statutory Material Cited
15
Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd (No 4)
[2017] FCA 1139
Talacko v Talacko
[2009] VSC 98
Storry v Parkyn
[2024] FCAFC 67