SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Conde v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2010] QCA 66
PARTIES:
MILTON ARNOLDO CONDE
(respondent/applicant)
v
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(applicant/respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 2487 of 2010
SC No 627 of 2010DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Miscellaneous Application (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at BrisbaneDELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
25 March 2010DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
25 March 2010
JUDGES:
Fraser JA
ORDER:
Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant sought to appeal against orders made pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) staying the applicant’s proceedings or requiring him to obtain leave to proceed – where the applicant applied under s 11 of the Act for leave to institute an appeal against the orders – whether the Court is required to dismiss the application pursuant to s 12 of the Act – whether there is a reasonable ground for the proposed appeal and whether it is vexatious
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), s 6(2)(a), s 6(2)(b), s 6 (2)(c), s 10, s 11, s 11(3), s 12(1)(b)
Gilfoyle and Ors v Conde[2010] QSC 14, citedCOUNSEL:
The applicant appeared his own behalf
No appearance for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
No appearance for the respondent
FRASER JA: On 17 February 2010, the primary judge, Justice Byrne, made orders pursuant to s 6(2)(a) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), staying three separate proceedings commenced by Mr Conde in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, four separate appeals commenced by Mr Conde in this Court, and one proceeding in the District Court. The primary judge also made orders pursuant to s 6(2)(c) of the Act, prohibiting Mr Conde from taking a step in seven separate proceedings he had commenced in the District Court without the prior leave of a judge of that court.
Mr Conde wishes to appeal from those orders. He faces the obstacle that on 4 February 2010 Justice Byrne had made an order pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Act prohibiting Mr Conde from instituting any proceeding in a court or tribunal in the State of Queensland without prior leave of a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland granted pursuant to Part 3 of the Act. That vexatious proceeding order remains in effect, though Mr Conde has appealed against it. That appeal has not yet been determined. Under s 10 of the Act the vexatious proceedings order, which remains in force, prohibits Mr Conde from instituting his proposed appeal against the subsequent orders of 17 February 2010 without the leave of the Court.
Mr Conde has now applied under s 11 of the Act for leave to institute his proposed appeal against those orders. As required by s 11(4) the applicant apparently has not served a copy of his application or supporting affidavit on any person. Section 12…
Continue reading Underwood v Sheppard
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Underwood v Sheppard [2010] QCA 66
- Case
- [2010] QCA 76
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the provisions of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) were clear and required the court to dismiss the application for leave to appeal if there were no reasonable grounds for the appeal or if the appeal was vexatious. The court examined the criteria for granting leave to appeal, including the existence of reasonable grounds and the absence of vexatiousness. The applicant's arguments did not meet these criteria, and the court held that the application was properly dismissed.
The court concluded that the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) provided a clear framework for dealing with vexatious litigation, and the application for leave to appeal did not meet the statutory requirements. The applicant's arguments were not sufficient to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the appeal or to rebut the presumption of vexatiousness. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the lower court were upheld.
ORDERS:
Application dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.