Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan v Wang - [2017] NSWSC 1791

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan v Wang [2017] NSWSC 1791
Hearing dates: 1 June 2017
Date of orders: 19 December 2017
Decision date: 19 December 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Any proceedings already instituted by Mr Wang against Mr Vaughan stayed; Mr Wang prohibited from instituting proceedings naming Michael Vaughan, Amil Dlakic or Johnston Vaughan as a party

Catchwords: VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS – application by an individual for vexatious proceedings orders – where defendant had brought multiple proceedings against plaintiff in multiple courts – incomprehensible pleadings – where defendant, having lost, believed he had won – possibility of cognitive impairment – appropriateness of making vexatious proceedings orders
Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), s 8
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), s 350(3)
Cases Cited: Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Gargan [2010] NSWSC 1192
Jones v Cusack [1992] HCA 40
Siteberg Pty Limited v Maples [2010] NSWSC 1344
Wang v Botany View Hotel [2009] NSWCA 384
Wang v Botany View Hotel [2011] NSWSC 1487
Wang v Botany View Hotel [2014] FCA 730
Wang v Botany View Hotel [2014] FCCA 850
Wang v Botany View Hotel [2017] NSWCA 249
Wang v Dlakic [2015] NSWSC 1590
Wang v Johnston Vaughan [2015] NSWCA 35
Wang v Purpose Pty Limited [2011] FCA 381
Wang v Purpose Pty Ltd trading as Botany View Hotel [2017] NSWSC 644
Wang v Vaughan [2013] NSWSC 1016
Wang v Vaughan [2016] NSWSC 1430
Yun Fu Wang v Botany View Hotel [2008] NSWCA 229
Yun Fu Wang v Botany View Hotel [2009] HCASL 68
Yun Fu Wang v Botany View Hotel [2010] HCASL 116
Yun Fu Wang v Botany View Hotel Ltd [2008] NSWWCCPD 25
Yun Fu Wang v Botany View Hotel Ltd [2009] NSWWCCPD 63
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael John Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan (plaintiff)
Yun Fu Wang (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hammond (plaintiff)
Defendant self-represented
Solicitors:
Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers (plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2017/71166
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Michael Vaughan is a solicitor and sole practitioner trading under the name Johnston Vaughan. On about 20 December 2010, Johnston Vaughan was retained by Yun Fu Wang to represent him in proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Mr Vaughan formed the view that the proceedings were misconceived. In early 2011, he sought instructions from Mr Wang to discontinue the proceedings. On 16 February 2011, the proceedings were dismissed by consent.
Since then, Mr Wang has brought multiple proceedings against Johnston Vaughan, without success. By these proceedings, Mr Vaughan seeks vexatious proceedings orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) to restrain Mr Wang from commencing further proceedings against him or Johnston Vaughan.
The summons sought orders staying any proceedings in New South Wales already instituted by Mr Wang and prohibiting him from instituting any proceedings in New South Wales or the Commonwealth of Australia. However, Mr Vaughan’s written submissions indicated…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan v Wang and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 1791
Decision Date: 19 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Johnston Vaughan trading as Vaughan, sought orders against the respondent, Wang, declaring his proceedings to be vexatious. The respondent had commenced numerous proceedings against the applicant in various courts, including the Federal Circuit Court and the Supreme Court. The pleadings were often incomprehensible, and the respondent appeared to believe that he had been successful despite the courts' dismissal of his claims. The applicant contended that the respondent's conduct constituted vexatious litigation, and sought orders to prevent further proceedings without leave. The court had to determine whether the respondent's actions constituted vexatious litigation, and whether it was appropriate to make orders under the relevant legislation to prevent the respondent from continuing with such proceedings.

The court considered the statutory criteria for determining whether proceedings were vexatious, including whether the proceedings had no reasonable prospects of success, and whether they were brought for a purpose other than that for which they were ostensibly brought. The court also considered the respondent's possible cognitive impairment, and whether this affected his capacity to understand the proceedings or the consequences of his actions. The court found that the respondent's conduct did constitute vexatious litigation, as his claims were without merit and brought for an improper purpose. The court also found that the respondent's cognitive impairment did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions, as he was able to instruct his lawyers and participate in the proceedings.

The court made orders declaring the respondent's proceedings to be vexatious, and prohibiting him from commencing further proceedings against the applicant without the leave of the court. The orders also required the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application. The court emphasised the importance of protecting litigants from the burden and expense of defending vexatious litigation, and the need to balance this with the respondent's right to access to the courts. The court also noted the potential impact of cognitive impairment on a person's capacity to litigate, and the need for appropriate support and accommodations in such cases.

Orders