Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited - [2021] NSWSC 1259

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited & Ors [2021] NSWSC 1259
Hearing dates: 6 October 2020
Date of orders: 8 October 2021
Decision date: 08 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Vexatious proceedings orders made

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – parties – vexatious litigants – whether the plaintiff has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia – whether plaintiff’s conduct of present proceeding demonstrative of future vexatious proceedings being pursued – vexatious proceedings orders made

Legislation Cited:
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) ss 3, 4, 6, 8
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 52
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 63, 73
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 7.14

Cases Cited:
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson & Anor [2018] NSWSC 1756
Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson v Elders Limited and Ors [2016] NSWSC 450
Jones v Cusack [1992] HCA 40; (1992) 66 ALJR 815
Mohareb v Palmer (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 324
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No 2) [2009] FCA 398
Potier v Attorney General in and for the State of NSW (2015) 89 NSWLR 284; [2015] NSWCA 129
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 8) [2014] NSWCA 125
Viavattene v Attorney General (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 44
Williamson v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd [2020] NSWSC 934
Williamson v Carneys Lawyers [2015] NSWSC 1080
Williamson v Elders [2016] NSWSC 1505
Williamson v Elders Limited [2017] NSWSC 667
Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited (No 1) [2017] NSWSC 1644
Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1986
Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 137
Williamson v Rural Bank Limited [2019] NSWSC 1735
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Ltd [2018] NSWCA 317

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Hugh Arthur Williamson (Plaintiff)
Elders Rural Services Australia Limited (1st Defendant)
Rural Bank Limited (2nd Defendant)
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (3rd Defendant)
Elders Limited (4th Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Hugh Arthur Williamson (Self-represented)
D Robertson (1st and 4th Defendants)
A Avery-Williams (2nd and 3rd Defendants)
Solicitors:
Cowell Clarke (1st and 4th Defendants)
Turks Legal (2nd and 3rd Defendants)

File Number(s): 2019/286765

Judgment

The remaining issue in these proceedings is the determination of applications made by the first and fourth defendants, Elders Rural Services Australia Limited and Elders Limited (“Elders”) respectively, and the second and third defendants, Rural Bank Limited and Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (“the Banks”) respectively, for vexatious proceedings orders under s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) against the plaintiff, Mr Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson (“Mr Williamson”), prohibiting him from instituting further proceedings in NSW against each defendant, their directors, officers or legal representatives without the leave of the court.
The principal proceedings in which both motions were filed and related proceedings in the Equity Division (2019/283383) were summarily dismissed by Bellew J on 21 July 2020: [2020] NSWSC 934 and [2020] NSWSC 933, respectively. In substance,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NSWSC 1259
Decision Date: 08 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited, the plaintiff, Mr Williamson, brought an action against Elders Rural Services Australia Limited, seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract and other claims. The defendants sought an order under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (Cth) declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and consequently, prohibiting the plaintiff from initiating further proceedings without leave of the court. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had frequently instituted or conducted proceedings in Australia that were vexatious. The court also had to determine whether the conduct of the plaintiff in the present proceeding was indicative of future vexatious proceedings being pursued. The court considered the definition of a vexatious litigant under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (Cth), and the criteria for making a vexatious litigant order, which included the plaintiff's past conduct, the nature of the present proceeding, and any other relevant factors.

The court found that the plaintiff had a history of instituting and conducting numerous proceedings, many of which were deemed vexatious. The court noted that the plaintiff had been declared a vexatious litigant by various courts in the past, and had been subject to orders limiting his ability to initiate proceedings without leave. The court also found that the conduct of the plaintiff in the present proceeding was demonstrative of a pattern of vexatious conduct, including the making of groundless threats of litigation and the pursuit of claims that were frivolous or without merit. Based on these findings, the court made orders declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and prohibiting him from initiating further proceedings without leave of the court.

The court also made orders for the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis. The orders were intended to protect the defendants from further vexatious litigation by the plaintiff, and to deter the plaintiff from engaging in similar conduct in the future. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the integrity of the legal system, and the need to prevent individuals from abusing the judicial process for their own ends.

Orders