Wang v Botany View Hotel

[2021] NSWSC 422

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Wang v Botany View Hotel [2021] NSWSC 422

Hearing dates:

On the papers

Date of orders:

26 April 2021

Decision date:

26 April 2021

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Schmidt AJ

Decision:

Mr Wang’s application is dismissed

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE – vexatious litigant – Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 ss 14 and 15 – incomprehensible pleadings – application for leave to proceed – no discernible cause of action – application dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 3.13, 7.1

Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) ss 6, 14, 15

Cases Cited:

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

Wang v Botany View Hotel (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1323

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Yun Fu Wang (Plaintiff)
Botany View Hotel (Defendant)

Representation:

Plaintiff: (self-represented)

File Number(s):

2021/88887

Judgment

1. In Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan v Wang [2017] NSWSC 1791 McCallum J made orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), staying proceedings Mr Wang had brought against Mr Vaughan, his former solicitor and prohibiting him from instituting proceedings naming identified people as parties. In Wang v Botany View Hotel (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 1323 Adamson J made further orders under the Act, varying the orders McCallum J had made, to prohibit Mr Wang from instituting proceedings in New South Wales, without leave of the Court.

2. Mr Wang thus requires the Court’s leave to institute any proceedings which he wishes to pursue in this State.

3. Such an application must comply with the requirements imposed by s 14 of the Act. They include filing an affidavit with the application that lists all occasions on which the applicant has applied for leave; lists all other proceedings the applicant has instituted in Australia, including proceedings instituted before the commencement of the section; and discloses all facts material to the application, whether supporting or adverse to the application, that are known to the applicant.

4. In March 2021 Mr Wang filed a summons naming Botany View Hotel as the defendant, identifying his claim to be “lodge this summons. The section in the document”. On 6 April he filed an affidavit he had sworn, to which was attached another summons.

5. Like the position discussed by McCallum J in many of the proceedings she had to consider, the documents Mr Wang filed were extremely difficult to understand. But I accept that his summons should be understood as seeking the Court’s leave to institute proceedings by filing a summons in the terms of the document later attached to his 6 April affidavit.

6. As best as the relief Mr Wang claimed in his summons can be understood, he there sought:

“Torres v Handrid 71UCPR. 3J and defendant agreed appeal to required repealed.

LU v Petrou, 3.13 UCPR, QBE copy false and assented hold vy vexation, Attorney continue refused pay”

7. There is no rule 71 in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Rule 7.1 is concerned with who may commence proceedings, including natural persons such as Mr Wang. Rule 3.13 is concerned with the filing of wills. What Mr Wang meant by the reference to these Rules is not apparent, but that does not preclude consideration of his application.

8. I am, however, satisfied that the leave which Mr Wang requires before he can pursue the proceedings he wishes to institute, must be refused.

9. An application for leave may be dismissed, even if no oral hearing is held: s 15(2). In Mr Wang’s case I am satisfied that justice does not require any oral hearing, because his application can justly be dealt with on the papers.

10. Section 15(1) of the Act requires the Court to dismiss an application for leave, if not satisfied that the required affidavit substantially complies with s 14, or if the proceedings are vexatious proceedings, or there is no prima facie ground for the proceedings. “Vexatious proceedings” are defined in s 6 to include:

“(a) proceedings that are an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal, and

(b) proceedings instituted to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for another wrongful purpose, and

(c) proceedings instituted or pursued without reasonable ground, and

(d) proceedings that are conducted to achieve a wrongful purpose, or in a way that harasses, or causes unreasonable annoyance, delay or detriment, regardless of the subjective intention or motive of the person who instituted the proceedings.”

11. As best as can be read, Mr Wang’s affidavit states:

“l.l'm plaintiff You Fu wang, The defendant is Botany View Hotel

2.Document "A", my original "type claim" write:

(l)chapter 6 solicitor breach contract and DEED to arose vexation 6 years, they agreed 6 years at qualify time, - McCallum J cannot re open by 5 month, -123.130K past cited cannot filed Vexation,

(2) part 1, -i) arbitrator issue principle correct arose as a case, will no longer dispute history injury,, -ii) 2017 Registrar online issue motion. -iii) McCallum J used illegal motion to dismiss police of motion first deal with in Australian, -iv) 2021, 3 J limit time, set out right appeal aside, supreme court fail 4 jurisdiction courts, Crown and Spark Helmore agreed appeal right, full J agreed appealed

(3)s8(1) the employer spread foods on street damage workplace safety and required face sullen person work cause slip injury, part 5, 6, [24] employer support compensation, other way made false document refused pay

(4) s351GIO adverse contract to made false document, failure issue “medicare online claim”, QBE agreed pay, subrule (2)(b) QBE copy GIO false refused pay to assault disability to changing Spark Helmore hold by vexation and Attorney, 2 defendant agreed appeal right, the case established, will no dismiss,

(5) under award order, court cannot limit time, will full time court,

3. 30/3/21, 2 Register officer know the above question,”

12. The contents of the affidavit well establishes that Mr Wang has not there attempted, either to list all other proceedings he has instituted in Australia, or to disclose all facts material to his application, whether supporting or adverse to the application, that are known to him, as s 14 requires. In those circumstances his application must be refused: s 15(1).

13. Mr Wang’s proposed summons also establishes that there is no prima facie ground for the proceedings he seeks to pursue. They also appear to be vexatious.

14. As best as can be read, the claims Mr Wang identifies in the summons annexed to his affidavit are:

“1. Chapter 6 Solicitor breach contract and DEED to avoze “vexation 6 years”, they agreed at quality time pay $100,000 – McCallum J at 5 month open vexation, only for debtor refused pay, effect s.. safety, she part cited power enter vexation 123 & 130K

2. Arbitrator issue principle as a case, part 1, will no longer dispute, - 2021 Full J and defendant agreed appeal right, court over view request repeated, Registrar online issue motion, McCallum Judge used illegal motion, dismiss pal… of motion 2 judge limit time4 jurisdiction of supreme court appeal successful, and very jurisdiction counts.

3. 88(1) the employer spread food on street damage workplace safety and required face sullen worker, cause slip injury, part 5.6, [24] employer support compensation, either way inside false refused pay.

4. S851 GIO adverse contract made false failure issue “Medicare online claim” to charge QBE agreed pay sub rule 627(b)QBE copy GIO false refused pay to assist disability to change Spark Helmore held by vexatious and Attorney

5. Full time appeal.”

15. Again, as best as can be read, the relief he there seeks to claim is:

“Banwell v Attorney123. 130k power enter vexatious

Torres v Hamdrid 71V.sJ defendant agreed appeal right for repeated

Ebay MC v LLC 823 FCC 2001. QBE copy first false to encourage assault.“

16. What Ms Wang seeks to plead must be considered in light of his extensive history of litigation against the Botany View Hotel up to June 2017, which was discussed by McCallum J at [8]-[26]. That began with a worker’s compensation claim in relation to injuries which he sustained in August 2000, when he was employed at the Hotel. Since then he has repeatedly sought relief against the Hotel in the Workers Compensation Commission; before an arbitrator; in this Court; the Court of Appeal; the High Court, which twice refused him special leave; the Fair Work Division of the Federal Magistrates Court and in the Federal Court of Australia.

17. When Mr Wang’s proposed summons is considered in the face of this litigious history, it is impossible to conclude either that Mr Wang has prima facie grounds for the proceedings which he seeks leave to institute, or that they would not be vexatious.

18. In the result Mr Wang’s application must be refused.

Orders

19. For the reasons given, Mr Wang’s application is dismissed.

**********

Amendments

26 April 2021 - Addition to name of party

Decision last updated: 26 April 2021