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

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

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…

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.

Continue reading Wang v Botany View Hotel

Details

AGLC: Wang v Botany View Hotel [2021] NSWSC 422
Case: [2021] NSWSC 422
Decision Date: 26 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wang v Botany View Hotel, the plaintiff sought to bring a legal action against the defendant, the Botany View Hotel, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that the hotel had been negligent in failing to prevent him from being assaulted by a third party on the hotel's premises. The defendant hotel opposed the plaintiff's application for leave to proceed, asserting that the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant and that his pleadings were incomprehensible, lacking any discernible cause of action. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, and whether the pleadings were sufficiently clear to warrant granting leave to proceed.

The court considered the definition of a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 and whether the plaintiff's past legal history demonstrated a pattern of bringing proceedings that were frivolous or without merit. The court also examined the plaintiff's pleadings to determine whether they contained a discernible cause of action, and whether they were sufficiently clear to allow the court to understand the basis of the claim. The court found that the plaintiff had a history of bringing vexatious proceedings, and that his pleadings were incomprehensible and did not set out a discernible cause of action. The court held that the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant and dismissed the application for leave to proceed.

The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's history of bringing frivolous proceedings, as well as the lack of clarity in the pleadings. The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings did not set out a cause of action that was intelligible or capable of being understood by the court. The court held that the application for leave to proceed was an abuse of process and dismissed it. The court made no orders as to costs.

In conclusion, the court found that the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant and dismissed his application for leave to proceed. The court held that the plaintiff's pleadings were incomprehensible and did not set out a discernible cause of action. The court's decision highlights the importance of clear and intelligible pleadings in legal proceedings, and the need for courts to protect the legal system from abuse by vexatious litigants.

Orders