Wentworth v Graham - [2003] NSWCA 229

Reported Decision:
57 NSWLR 741

Court of Appeal

CITATION: Wentworth v Graham & Anor [2003] NSWCA 229

HEARING DATE(S): 11/08/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Brownie AJA at 1

DECISION: (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 may be granted to her, Miss Wentworth is restrained from bringing any interlocutory application in these proceedings without first having obtained the leave of either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA; (b) For the sake of clarity, it is to be noted that the order in (a) 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; (c) Leave pursuant to (a) 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; (d) No oral hearing will take place in regard to such applications for leave; (e) 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 (2) Miss Wentworth is restrained from making any application in these proceedings that either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA disqualify himself, unless such application is based on cogent fresh evidence.

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS - The inherent power of a court to restrain a person from making unwarranted and vexatious interlocutory applications without leave - History of unmeritorious satellite litigation - Repeated refusal to accept rulings - Repeated refusal to limit oral argments to time periods allotted by the Court - Repeated applications for judges to disqualify themselves on grounds of apprehended bias - Proper conduct of hearings in the courtroom - Frequent and intemperate displays of rudeness and discourtesy, and scurrilous and baseless allegations - Form of orders. D

CASES CITED: Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 1113
Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis (1974) 131 CLR 311
Wentworth v Graham [2003] NSWCA 104

PARTIES :
Katherine Wentworth (Claimant)
Geoffrey Graham (First Opponent)
William Charles Wentworth (Second Opponent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40277/00

COUNSEL: Claimant: In Person
First Opponent: N/A
Second Opponent: N/A

SOLICITORS: Claimant In Person
First Opponent: O'Hara & Company

CA 40277/00

IPP JA
BROWNIE JA
Friday 29 August 2003

KATHERINE WENTWORTH v GEOFFREY GRAHAM & ANOR

Judgment

1 THE COURT: This is a judgment of the Court delivered of its own motion. It will be delivered at the same time as judgments will be…

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 Wentworth v Graham

Details

AGLC: Wentworth v Graham [2003] NSWCA 229
Case: [2003] NSWCA 229
Decision Date: 29 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Wentworth v Graham*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application by the respondent concerning the conduct of the appellant, Miss Wentworth, in ongoing proceedings. The dispute centred on Miss Wentworth's history of making numerous interlocutory applications and her conduct during court hearings.

The Court was required to determine whether to exercise its inherent power to restrain Miss Wentworth from making further unwarranted and vexatious interlocutory applications without leave. This involved assessing whether her litigation history demonstrated a pattern of unmeritorious applications, repeated refusal to accept judicial rulings, and disruptive behaviour in court, including excessive oral arguments, applications for judicial disqualification, and displays of rudeness and discourtesy.

The Court reasoned that its inherent jurisdiction could be invoked to prevent an abuse of process and to ensure the proper administration of justice. It noted Miss Wentworth's persistent engagement in satellite litigation, her repeated challenges to judicial decisions, and her intemperate behaviour, which included making scurrilous and baseless allegations. The Court found that such conduct constituted an abuse of process and warranted the imposition of restrictions on her ability to initiate further interlocutory applications.

Consequently, the Court ordered Miss Wentworth to show cause in writing why she should not be restrained from bringing any interlocutory application in the proceedings without first obtaining the leave of either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA. This restriction was to apply to all interlocutory applications, including a foreshadowed application to set aside previous orders. The Court also ordered that applications for leave be made in writing, without oral hearing, and that all further hearings in the proceedings would be conducted solely on written submissions. Furthermore, Miss Wentworth was restrained from applying for the disqualification of either judge unless based on cogent fresh evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

(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 may be granted to her, Miss Wentworth is restrained from bringing any interlocutory application in these proceedings without first having obtained the leave of either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA; (b) For the sake of clarity, it is to be noted that the order in (a) 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; (c) Leave pursuant to (a) 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; (d) No oral hearing will take place in regard to such applications for leave; (e) 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 (2) Miss Wentworth is restrained from making any application in these proceedings that either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA disqualify himself, unless such application is based on cogent fresh evidence.

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.

CITATION:	Wentworth v Graham & Anor [2003] NSWCA 229
HEARING DATE(S):	11/08/03
JUDGMENT DATE:	29 August 2003
JUDGMENT OF:	Ipp JA at 1; Brownie AJA at 1
DECISION:	(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 may be granted to her, Miss Wentworth is restrained from bringing any interlocutory application in these proceedings without first having obtained the leave of either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA; (b) For the sake of clarity, it is to be noted that the order in (a) 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; (c) Leave pursuant to (a) 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; (d) No oral hearing will take place in regard to such applications for leave; (e) 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 (2) Miss Wentworth is restrained from making any application in these proceedings that either Ipp JA or Brownie AJA disqualify himself, unless such application is based on cogent fresh evidence.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS - The inherent power of a court to restrain a person from making unwarranted and vexatious interlocutory applications without leave - History of unmeritorious satellite litigation - Repeated refusal to accept rulings - Repeated refusal to limit oral argments to time periods allotted by the Court - Repeated applications for judges to disqualify themselves on grounds of apprehended bias - Proper conduct of hearings in the courtroom - Frequent and intemperate displays of rudeness and discourtesy, and scurrilous and baseless allegations - Form of orders. D
CASES CITED:	Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 1113 Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis (1974) 131 CLR 311 Wentworth v Graham [2003] NSWCA 104
PARTIES :	Katherine Wentworth (Claimant) Geoffrey Graham (First Opponent) William Charles Wentworth (Second Opponent)
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40277/00
COUNSEL:	Claimant: In Person First Opponent: N/A Second Opponent: N/A
SOLICITORS:	Claimant In Person First Opponent: O'Hara & Company