Vollaire (Sutton) v Prefumo

VOLLAIRE (SUTTON) -v- PREFUMO [2011] WADC 59 (S)

Last Update: 02/06/2011

VOLLAIRE (SUTTON) -v- PREFUMO [2011] WADC 59 (S)
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WADC 59 (S)
Published:	03/06/2011
Case No:	CIVO:102/2010	Heard:	1 & 21 DECEMBER 2010 & 3 MARCH 2011
Coram:	SLEIGHT DCJ	Delivered:	14/04/2011
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:	14/04/2011
No of Pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff's husband added to list of protected persons
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	JEANNE MARIE PAOLA VOLLAIRE (SUTTON) LOUIS MARCEL ANGELO GILBERT PREFUMO
Catchwords:	Application under Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) Statutory requirements Scope of order when private individual applies Turns on its own facts
Legislation:	Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)
Case References:	Vollaire (Sutton) v Prefumo [2011] WADC 59

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : VOLLAIRE (SUTTON) -v- PREFUMO [2011] WADC 59 (S) CORAM : SLEIGHT DCJ HEARD : 1 & 21 DECEMBER 2010 & 3 MARCH 2011 DELIVERED : 14 APRIL 2011 PUBLISHED : 3 JUNE 2011 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 14 APRIL 2011 FILE NO/S : CIVO 102 of 2010 BETWEEN : JEANNE MARIE PAOLA VOLLAIRE (SUTTON)

Plaintiff

AND

LOUIS MARCEL ANGELO GILBERT PREFUMO

Defendant

Catchwords:

Application under Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) - Statutory requirements - Scope of order when private individual applies - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)

(Page 2)

Result:

Plaintiff's husband added to list of protected persons

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms W F Gillan & Ms J Johnston

Defendant : In person

Amicus Curiae

: Mr A J Sefton appeared on behalf of the Attorney General of Western Australia

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Calverley Johnston

Defendant : Not applicable

Amicus Curiae

: State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Vollaire (Sutton) v Prefumo [2011] WADC 59

(Page 3)

1 SLEIGHT DCJ: [This judgment was delivered extempore on 14 April 2011 and has been edited from the transcript.]

2 In my decision in the matter of Vollaire (Sutton) v Prefumo [2011] WADC 59 I refer in [12] to an affidavit of Mr Prefumo dated 21 March 2011, which had been filed in the District Court on 29 March 2011. I am informed by counsel appearing for the applicant that a copy of this affidavit had not been served on the applicant's solicitors, and the first time that the applicant's solicitors became aware of this affidavit was this morning.

3 Paragraph 13 of that affidavit of Mr Prefumo contains a claim by Mr Prefumo that he was threatened by Ms Vollaire's husband on 5 March 2011. Mr Prefumo says that he has lodged a complaint concerning this alleged threat with the Premier of Victoria, as Ms Vollaire's husband is a serving police officer. Mr Prefumo has also informed me today that he has lodged a complaint with both the Victorian Police and the Western Australian Police concerning Ms Vollaire's husband.

4 Ms Vollaire's counsel expressed to me concern that Mr Prefumo would commence a vexatious proceeding against Ms Vollaire's husband, just as he has done in relation to other persons associated with Ms Vollaire. Mr Prefumo has informed me today that he does not intend to do so. However, I conclude that it is a likely scenario that Mr Prefumo, at some time in the future, will commence a vexatious proceeding against Ms Vollaire's husband, as this is consistent with Mr Prefumo's past history of litigation. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate that I add Ms Vollaire's husband to the names of protected persons listed in [71] of my decision in Vollaire v Prefumo. The list of protected persons will now include Ms Vollaire's husband, Mr Brendan Gerard Sutton.

| |

Vollaire (Sutton) v Prefumo was a case brought before the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff sought to have her husband added to the list of protected persons under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation of statutory requirements and the scope of an order when a private individual applies for the inclusion of a person in the list of protected persons. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's husband met the criteria for being listed as a protected person under the act, and if so, to what extent the order would apply.

The legal issues central to the case involved the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, specifically the definition of "protected person" and the scope of the court's power to grant such an order. The court had to consider whether the application was vexatious and if the plaintiff's husband's involvement in the proceedings warranted his inclusion in the list of protected persons. Additionally, the court needed to assess the potential impact of such an order on the plaintiff's ability to pursue her claims.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the plaintiff's husband did meet the criteria for being listed as a protected person. The court emphasised that each application under the act turns on its own facts and that the plaintiff's husband's involvement in the proceedings was significant enough to warrant the order. The court carefully considered the evidence presented and concluded that the plaintiff's husband's actions had the potential to be vexatious and oppressive, thereby justifying his inclusion on the list. The court's order was tailored to the specific circumstances of this case, ensuring that the plaintiff's ability to pursue her claims was not unduly restricted.

The final orders of the court included adding the plaintiff's husband to the list of protected persons under the act. The court's decision provided clarity on the scope of such orders and reinforced the importance of assessing each application on its own merits. This case underscores the need for careful consideration of the statutory requirements and the specific circumstances of each case when determining the appropriateness of including a person in the list of protected persons.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established