Woolworths Group Limited v Keane (No 2) - [2024] SASC 13

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED v KEANE (No 2)
[2024] SASC 13
Judgment of The Honourable Justice McDonald
PROCEDURE - STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY - VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS, PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED MATTERS - VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
The applicant – the respondent’s former employer, applied to the Court seeking orders that the respondent be prohibited from instituting proceedings in a prescribed court without the permission of the Supreme Court under s 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), as well as in the Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The applicant also sought orders permanently staying pending civil proceedings in the Adelaide Magistrates Court.
During the above-mentioned proceedings, the respondent filed various interlocutory applications seeking, inter alia, the dismissal of the proceedings, the joinder of third parties, the interim re-instatement of his employment and the issue of subpoenas for various individuals to give evidence. The Court determined to consider each application as it was made on its merits, and provide reasons later.
Held, dismissing the interlocutory applications: each application filed by the respondent was entirely unmeritorious, and largely sought to re-litigate the circumstances of the respondent’s dismissal from employment by the applicant. None of the applications filed disclosed a proper basis for the orders sought by the respondent.
These are the reasons for arriving at those decisions.
Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 39, referred to.

WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED v KEANE (No 2)
[2024] SASC 13
Civil: Application
McDONALD J.

Woolworths Group Limited (‘Woolworths’) made an application seeking an order that Thomas Courtney Keane be prohibited from instituting proceedings in a prescribed court without the permission of the Supreme Court. The application was made under s 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) and in the Courts inherent jurisdiction.
On 2 February 2024 I granted the application and made the order for the reasons set out in (Woolworths Group v Keane (No 1)).[1]
[1] FDN [2024] SASC 12.
Woolworths filed the Originating Application on 3 May 2023. Subsequent to the filing of the Originating Application, Mr Keane has filed or attempted to file a number of applications that I have struck out or dismissed. I provide the following reasons for those rulings.
26 May 2023 – Interlocutory Application (FDN 3)
On 26 May 2023 Mr Keane filed an Interlocutory Application seeking the Originating Application (FDN 1) be dismissed and that an injunction be granted “for reinstatement of employment.” He filed an affidavit in support of the application that was sworn on that same date.
In that affidavit Mr Keane makes allegations of fraud against Woolworths, a number of their employees, and their legal advisors. He claims to have been falsely accused of sexual assault and of having been the subject of a criminal conspiracy. I set out the following paragraphs of Mr Keane’s affidavit as illustrative of the overall tenor and nature of the matters raised.
13.I would also note, I am attempting to do so by civil means, not via hurled bricks, slashed…

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 Woolworths Group Limited v Keane (No 2) 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: [2024] SASC 13
Decision Date: 2 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woolworths Group Limited v Keane (No 2) involved a dispute between Woolworths Group Limited, a major Australian supermarket chain, and Mr Keane, a former employee. The litigation centred on allegations made by Mr Keane against Woolworths, its employees, and legal advisors, including claims of fraud, false accusations of sexual assault, and criminal conspiracy. The matter was before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which was tasked with addressing multiple interlocutory applications filed by Mr Keane.

The court needed to decide whether Mr Keane's allegations and the manner in which he had pursued his claims were vexatious. This involved examining the nature and substance of Mr Keane's affidavit, which contained a series of accusations against various parties, and determining whether these claims were made in bad faith or were otherwise vexatious. The court also had to consider the jurisdiction over the employment termination issue, which had already been decided by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court.

In dismissing the interlocutory application, the judge found that while there was a proper basis for filing the originating application, there was no reasonable basis for Mr Keane’s claims. The court held that the allegations were not substantiated and were made in a vexatious manner. The judge concluded that the claims were not within the court's jurisdiction and that Mr Keane's conduct in pursuing the litigation was vexatious. The court therefore dismissed the application and made orders to that effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In that affidavit Mr Keane makes allegations of fraud against Woolworths, a number of their employees, and their legal advisors. He claims to have been falsely accused of sexual assault and of having been the subject of a criminal conspiracy. I set out the following paragraphs of Mr Keane’s affidavit as illustrative of the overall tenor and nature of the matters raised.13.I would also note, I am attempting to do so by civil means, not via hurled bricks, slashed tires and threats of violence. Minter Ellison has been so rude and so aloof they legitimately refused to let me file, or in some cases even enter their offices until April of 2023. They have been legitimately ignoring me while telling judicial officers of the fair work commission I had sexually assaulted AN, then later telling various magistrates that they didn’t, and that police were never involved, even with evidence provided to them and the magistrate we are currently before.19.I would also like to bring my (sic) attention to the extent of the pointless and needless suffering I have endured. I find myself in multiple lawsuits, false allegations and severely disadvantaged economically. None of this has been necessary. Having suffered homelessness, harassment, and been a victim of this crime so long, I am becoming agoraphobic, due to having to take “hibernation days” in order to save money, and having nothing substantive in my life to discuss then addressing a supermarkets claims of sexual assault they themselves fabricated. On 23 June 2023 I dismissed the Interlocutory Application. I did so as there was a proper basis upon which to file the Originating Application. There was a reasonable basis for Woolworths prosecuting the cause of action. In relation to the application for an injunction requiring Woolworths to reinstate Mr Keane’s employment, it sought relief that it is not in the jurisdiction of this Court to grant. The issue of the termination of Mr Keane’s employment falls within the Federal jurisdiction and as will become apparent when I come to deal with the basis of the application to have Mr Keane declared vexatious, that issue has been well and truly determined by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court.28 June 2023 – Interlocutory Application (FDN 9) On 28 June 2023 Mr Keane filed a further Interlocutory Application (FDN 9). In that application, Mr Keane sought orders to join the Shop Distributors Allied Union SA/NT (‘SDA’) as a party to the proceedings, to “cross-claim against Woolworths and the SDA” and “orders to examine witnesses.” This application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr Keane on 27 June 2023. In this affidavit Mr Keane makes various allegations against the SDA including fraud, dishonesty, gross negligence, the concealment of criminal conduct and corruption. He claims that if permitted to join the SDA to the proceedings “it would undoubtedly discover corruption and a blatant abuse of trust and power on behalf of the SDA Union SA/NT.” Later in the affidavit Mr Keane further elaborated:Based on the statement made by Mr Douglas, it would seem that Woolworths Group is attempting another round of “appeasement” hearings, to “get things of (sic) my chest”, I am not interested in that, I am seeking my employment returned to me. The SDA will need to be apart (sic) of that process as they have already participated in falsifying a narrative that would favour Woolworths Group and discredit me by doing so, they had Freudianly (sic) mispresented issues and presented that as evidence before the Fair Work Commission, which is fraud, contempt and misleading the Court. (Emphasis Added)

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.