Viavattene v Attorney General (NSW)

The applicant, Mr Viavattene, appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against an order made by a primary judge under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW). The Attorney-General conceded that the primary judge had erred in assessing whether Mr Viavattene had frequently instituted vexatious proceedings, leading to a "blanket" order being made against him.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was to determine the appropriate scope of an order under the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW), considering the definition of "vexatious proceedings" and the specific circumstances of Mr Viavattene's litigation history. The court was required to assess whether the proceedings instituted by Mr Viavattene were indeed vexatious and, if so, what form of prohibition was warranted.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the original orders. The court reasoned that while some of Mr Viavattene's proceedings might have been vexatious, the initial broad order was not justified. Applying the principles of the *Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008* (NSW), the court determined that a narrower order was appropriate. Consequently, the court made an order prohibiting Mr Viavattene from instituting proceedings in New South Wales that were inconsistent with the finding that an access track did not encroach upon his property following its realignment on or about 11 November 2010.