Wentworth v Graham

Case [2003] NSWCA 307
CITATION: Wentworth v Graham & Anor [2003] NSWCA 307
HEARING DATE(S): On written submissions
JUDGMENT DATE:
20 October 2003
JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Brownie AJA at 1
DECISION: (1) Miss Wentworth is restrained from bringing any interlocutory application in these proceedings (that is, in connection with the application for leave to appeal) without first having obtained the leave of either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA (2) For the sake of clarity, it is to be noted that the order in (1) applies to the foreshadowed application to set aside the 'determinations, judgment and orders of 17 [sic - 13] May and 4 June 2003', as well as all other interlocutory applications in these proceedings (3) Leave pursuant to (1) is to be sought by written application setting out the full basis on which leave is sought and the full basis of the claim for the relief the subject of the proposed application, and by written submissions (4) No oral hearing will take place in regard to such applications for leave (5) If leave is granted, no oral hearing will take place in regard to any application made pursuant to such leave; all further hearings in these proceedings will be by way of written submissions alone.
CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Notice to show cause (in writing) why orders should not be made - oral submissions disallowed - Repeated refusal to accept rulings - Repeated applications for judges to disqualify themselves on the grounds of apprehended bias - Procedural fairness and natural justice - Proper/improper conduct of hearings in court proceedings - Proceedings dependent on a grant of probate not yet made - - Inherent power of the Court to protect its process from abuse by persons making unwarranted and vexatious interlocutory applications without leave - Claimant restrained from bringing any interlocutory application without leave - Written (not oral) submissions in the event subsequent leave is granted due to the claimant's repeated conduct in court during proceedings. D
LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970
CASES CITED: Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 1113
Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis (1974) 131 CLR 311
Grepe v Loam (1888) 37 Ch D 168
Ramsey v Skyring (1999) 164 ALR 378
Taylor v Lawrence [2003] QB 528

PARTIES :

 Katherine Wentworth (Claimant)
Geoffrey Graham (First Opponent)
William Charles Wentworth (Second Opponent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40277/00
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS: Russo & Partners (Claimant)
O'Hara & Company (First Opponent)



                          CA 40277/00

                          IPP JA
                          BROWNIE AJA

                          Monday 20 October 2003
KATHERINE WENTWORTH v GEOFFREY GRAHAM & ANOR
Judgment

1 THE COURT: On 29 August 2003 this Court made orders in the following terms:

          “(1) Within 21 days from delivery of this judgment, Miss Wentworth is to show cause in writing, by way of affidavits (if she wishes, particularly to deal with the possible inferences to which we have referred), and written submissions, why orders should not be made as follows:
          (a) Save for the purposes of prosecuting the leave to appeal that has been or…

Continue reading Wentworth v Graham

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wentworth v Graham [2003] NSWCA 307
Case
[2003] NSWCA 307
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the proceedings before Ipp JA and Brownie AJA, the claimant, Miss Wentworth, sought to appeal against certain determinations, judgments, and orders made by the court. The dispute centred on Miss Wentworth's conduct during the proceedings, which included repeated refusals to accept rulings, applications for judges to disqualify themselves on grounds of apprehended bias, and the fact that the proceedings were dependent on a grant of probate that had not yet been made.

The court was required to determine whether Miss Wentworth's conduct constituted an abuse of the court's process and, if so, what orders were necessary to protect the integrity of the proceedings. Specifically, the court considered the application of principles of procedural fairness and natural justice in the context of the claimant's repeated interlocutory applications and her refusal to accept the court's rulings. The court also had to consider its inherent power to prevent the abuse of its process by vexatious and unwarranted applications.

The court reasoned that Miss Wentworth's conduct amounted to an abuse of process, justifying the imposition of restrictions on her ability to bring further interlocutory applications. Applying its inherent jurisdiction, the court found it necessary to restrain Miss Wentworth from initiating any further interlocutory applications without first obtaining leave. This leave was to be sought by written application, detailing the grounds for seeking leave and the basis of the proposed claim, with no oral hearings permitted for such applications.

Consequently, the court ordered that Miss Wentworth be restrained from bringing any interlocutory application in the proceedings without first obtaining the leave of either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA. This restraint applies to all interlocutory applications, including a foreshadowed application to set aside previous orders. Any application for leave must be in writing, and if leave is granted, all subsequent hearings in the proceedings will be conducted solely on the basis of written submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Miss Wentworth is restrained from bringing any interlocutory application in these proceedings (that is, in connection with the application for leave to appeal) without first having obtained the leave of either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA (2) For the sake of clarity, it is to be noted that the order in (1) applies to the foreshadowed application to set aside the 'determinations, judgment and orders of 17 [sic - 13] May and 4 June 2003', as well as all other interlocutory applications in these proceedings (3) Leave pursuant to (1) is to be sought by written application setting out the full basis on which leave is sought and the full basis of the claim for the relief the subject of the proposed application, and by written submissions (4) No oral hearing will take place in regard to such applications for leave (5) If leave is granted, no oral hearing will take place in regard to any application made pursuant to such leave; all further hearings in these proceedings will be by way of written submissions alone.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.