Legal Research
Cases
Woolf v Brandt (No 4)

Woolf v Brandt (No 4)

Case [2024] NSWCA 47 8 March 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woolf v Brandt (No 4) [2024] NSWCA 47
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 08 March 2024
Decision date: 08 March 2024
Before: Kirk JA; Adamson JA
Decision:
(1) Dismiss the applicant’s motion filed on 15 February 2024.
(2) Make no order as to costs of the motion.
(3) Vacate the hearing before the Registrar on 11 March 2024.

Catchwords:
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Motion to set aside or vary orders – Court of Appeal – Second application under UCPR, r 36.16(3A) – Applicant seeking to reagitate issues for second time – No basis for re-opening established – Application vexatious and an abuse of process

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.16(3A), 51.12(3)(a), 51.13(5)(a)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Arjunan v Neighbourhood Association DP No 285853 (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 266
Ashby v Slipper (2014) 219 FCR 322; [2014] FCAFC 15
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12
Gwe v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (2020) 103 NSWLR 509; [2020] NSWCA 247)
Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 132
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 4) (2011) 81 NSWLR 711; [2011] NSWCA 324
Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34
Woolf v Brandt (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 309
Woolf v Brandt (No 3) [2024] NSWCA 6
Woolf v Brandt [2023] NSWCA 290

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Richard Woolf (Applicant)
Nicholas Brandt (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-represented (Applicant)
T Smartt (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Not applicable (Applicant)
Youth Law Australia (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2023/214839
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Citation:

Woolf v Brandt (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 184

Date of Decision:

07 June 2023

Before:

Gibson DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/135926

JUDGMENT

THE COURT: This Court has delivered three earlier judgments in this matter:

The Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the District Court which summarily dismissed the applicant’s claim in defamation as an abuse of process: Woolf v Brandt [2023] NSWCA 290 (Woolf (No 1). Orders were made on the day of the hearing, 30 November 2023, with reasons published on 5 December 2023.

The Court made an order on 15 December 2023 that costs be paid in a specified gross sum: Woolf v Brandt (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 309.

The applicant filed a motion on 14 December 2023 seeking orders pursuant to r 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), and/or the inherent powers of the Court, that the Court set aside or vary the orders made on 30 November 2023. The Court dismissed that application on 1 February 2024: Woolf v Brandt (No 3) [2024] NSWCA 6 (Woolf (No 3)).

The applicant in this proceeding has now again applied for this Court to re-open its decision. On 15 February 2024 the applicant,…

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 Woolf v Brandt (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Woolf v Brandt (No 4) [2024] NSWCA 47
Case: [2024] NSWCA 47
Decision Date: 08 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Woolf v Brandt (No 4)*, the applicant sought to set aside or vary orders made by the Court of Appeal. The application was brought under rule 36.16(3A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had established a sufficient basis to reagitate issues that had already been determined by the court. The court was required to consider whether the second application constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the applicant had not provided any new material or demonstrated any error in the previous decisions that would justify re-opening the matter. The court found that the application was vexatious and an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate decided issues without any proper legal foundation.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's motion, made no order as to the costs of the motion, and vacated the hearing before the Registrar scheduled for 11 March 2024.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Dismiss the applicant’s motion filed on 15 February 2024.

(2) Make no order as to costs of the motion.

(3) Vacate the hearing before the Registrar on 11 March 2024.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Woolf v Brandt (No 4) [2024] NSWCA 47

Most Recent Citation

Mendonca v Tonna [2025] NSWCA 112

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Mendonca v Tonna
[2025] NSWCA 112 Para 18

…a basis for re-opening under r 36.16(3A), let alone under r 36.15. Making such arguments is vexatious and an abuse of process: Woolf v Brandt (No 4) [2024] NSWCA 47 at [14]. Where a litigant considers that this Court has erred in its conclusion in an appeal or application for leave to appeal the relevant remedy i…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

Woolf v Brandt (No 3)
[2024] NSWCA 6 Para 3

…that the Court set aside or vary the orders made on 30 November 2023. The Court dismissed that application on 1 February 2024: Woolf v Brandt (No 3) [2024] NSWCA 6 ( Woolf (No 3) ).…
Woolf v Brandt (No 2)
[2023] NSWCA 309 Para 2

…The Court made an order on 15 December 2023 that costs be paid in a specified gross sum: Woolf v Brandt (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 309.…
Woolf v Brandt
[2023] NSWCA 290 Para 1

…o appeal from a decision of the District Court which summarily dismissed the applicant’s claim in defamation as an abuse of process: Woolf v Brandt [2023] NSWCA 290 ( Woolf (No 1) . Orders were made on the day of the hearing, 30 November 2023, with reasons published on 5 December 2023.…
Arjunan v Neighbourhood Association DP No 285853 (No 3)
[2023] NSWCA 266 Para 15

…) (2011) 81 NSWLR 711; [2011] NSWCA 324; see further eg Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 132; Arjunan v Neighbourhood Association DP No 285853 (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 266. In Teoh the following direction was made:…
Proietti v Proietti
[2023] NSWCA 132 Para 15

…make a direction along the lines made in Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 4) (2011) 81 NSWLR 711; [2011] NSWCA 324; see further eg Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 132; Arjunan v Neighbourhood Association DP No 285853 (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 266. In Teoh the following direction was made:…
Woolf v Brandt (No 2)
[2023] NSWDC 184

…le Number(s): 2023/214839 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court Jurisdiction: Civil Citation: Woolf v Brandt (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 184 Date of Decision: 07 June 2023 Before: Gibson DCJ File Number(s): 2022/135926…
Gwe v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2)
[2020] NSWCA 350 Para 10

…the part of the court as it applies to Gwe and Browne v Dunn ” (the former reference being to Gwe v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (2020) 103 NSWLR 509; [2020] NSWCA 247). The use of the word is apt – his arguments have, in substance, already been put at least once and commonly twice. In other places in his…
Gwe v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
[2020] NSWCA 247 Para 10

…as it applies to Gwe and Browne v Dunn ” (the former reference being to Gwe v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (2020) 103 NSWLR 509; [2020] NSWCA 247). The use of the word is apt – his arguments have, in substance, already been put at least once and commonly twice. In other places in his submissions he mak…
Ashby v Slipper (No 3)
[2015] FCAFC 9 Para 13

…ek to make various submissions about the rule in Browne v Dunn by reference to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Ashby v Slipper (2014) 219 FCR 322; [2014] FCAFC 15. There had only been a passing reference to that decision in the applicant’s submissions made in Woolf (No 3) . Although the emphasi…
Ashby v Slipper (No 2)
[2014] FCAFC 67 Para 13

…rgument is to seek to make various submissions about the rule in Browne v Dunn by reference to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Ashby v Slipper (2014) 219 FCR 322; [2014] FCAFC 15. There had only been a passing reference to that decision in the applicant’s submissions made in Woolf (No 3) . Although…
Ashby v Slipper
[2014] FCAFC 15 Para 13

…ubmissions about the rule in Browne v Dunn by reference to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Ashby v Slipper (2014) 219 FCR 322; [2014] FCAFC 15. There had only been a passing reference to that decision in the applicant’s submissions made in Woolf (No 3) . Although the emphasis given to that p…
Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 4)
[2011] NSWCA 324 Para 15

…ation to repeated and vexatious applications. It can make a direction along the lines made in Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 4) (2011) 81 NSWLR 711; [2011] NSWCA 324; see further eg Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 132; Arjunan v Neighbourhood Association DP No 285853 (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 266. In Teoh the following…
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid
[2005] HCA 12 Para 14

…or the limited circumstances in which re-opening is required, the principle of finality (see D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12 at [34]-[36]) and the rule of law requires that litigants accept the result of litigation, subject to exercising any appeal or judicial review rights t…
Williams v Spautz
[1992] HCA 34 Para 9

…pautz , and with quotes from each underlying authority” (emphasis in the original, the reference being to Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34).…
Browne v Dunn
113 ER 1206 Para 9

…makes extensive submissions about the proper test in relation to establishing an abuse of process for improper purpose and in relation to the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67. Little attempt is made to suggest that these arguments have not already been made. On the contrary, the main suggestion seems to be that the…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
36.16(3A), 51.12(3)(a), 51.13(5)(a) 4 mentions (from Para 3)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 16)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Woolf v Brandt (No 4) [2024] NSWCA 47
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	08 March 2024
Decision date:	08 March 2024
Before:	Kirk JA; Adamson JA
Decision:	(1) Dismiss the applicant’s motion filed on 15 February 2024. (2) Make no order as to costs of the motion. (3) Vacate the hearing before the Registrar on 11 March 2024.
Catchwords:	JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – Motion to set aside or vary orders – Court of Appeal – Second application under UCPR, r 36.16(3A) – Applicant seeking to reagitate issues for second time – No basis for re-opening established – Application vexatious and an abuse of process
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 36.16(3A), 51.12(3)(a), 51.13(5)(a) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Arjunan v Neighbourhood Association DP No 285853 (No 3) [2023] NSWCA 266 Ashby v Slipper (2014) 219 FCR 322; [2014] FCAFC 15 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12 Gwe v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (2020) 103 NSWLR 509; [2020] NSWCA 247) Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 132 Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 4) (2011) 81 NSWLR 711; [2011] NSWCA 324 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34 Woolf v Brandt (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 309 Woolf v Brandt (No 3) [2024] NSWCA 6 Woolf v Brandt [2023] NSWCA 290
Category:	Consequential orders
Parties:	Richard Woolf (Applicant) Nicholas Brandt (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Self-represented (Applicant) T Smartt (Respondent) Solicitors: Not applicable (Applicant) Youth Law Australia (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2023/214839
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court Jurisdiction: Civil Citation: Woolf v Brandt (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 184 Date of Decision: 07 June 2023 Before: Gibson DCJ File Number(s): 2022/135926