Legal Research
Cases
Woolworths Group Ltd v Keane

Woolworths Group Ltd v Keane

Case [2024] SASC 12 2 February 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
WOOLWORTHS GROUP LTD v KEANE
[2024] SASC 12
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 – seeks orders prohibiting the respondent from instituting any proceeding in any Court or Tribunal of this State without leave pursuant to s 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) (the Act) and in the inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court. The applicant also seeks a permanent stay of proceedings instituted by the respondent against the applicant in the Adelaide Magistrates Court on 27 January 2023.
Following the termination of his employment with the applicant on 22 December 2020 and the conclusion of a binding settlement agreement between the parties in the Fair Work Commission, the respondent has lodged 29 applications in the Fair Work Commission, an application for judicial review in the Federal Court of Australia, 6 applications in the Magistrates Court and 7 applications in this Court. These applications have primarily sought to re-agitate the circumstances of the respondent’s dismissal and, with a single exception, have been variously dismissed, struck out, discontinued or abandoned.
It is against that background that the applicant applies for the relief sought, contending that such orders are necessary to prevent the continued abuse of the Court’s processes. Further, the applicant submits that, in the absence of such an order, the respondent’s conduct is likely to persist at considerable expense to the applicant, the respondent, and the Courts.
Held, granting the application under s 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA): The respondent has “persistently instituted vexatious proceedings” within the meaning of the Act, enlivening the jurisdiction of the Court to make the orders sought.
The respondent has persistently instituted proceedings across the State’s courts, with the vexatiousness of his conduct further illustrated by his institution of proceedings agitating the same subject matter in the Federal jurisdiction. In circumstances where the respondent has expressed an intention to persist in this conduct, the orders sought are necessary to protect the Court’s processes from further abuse.
Given that an order has been made under s 39 of the Supreme Court Act, it is unnecessary for the Court to make orders in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 39; Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s, 178, s 179A, s 229, s 234, s 240, s 343, s 345, s 365, s 394, s 448, s 536D, s 587, s 589, s 590, s 739, s 773, s 789FC, referred to.
Andrew Garrett Wines Resorts Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank [2007] SASC 173; Attorney-General (SA) v Kowalski [2014] SASC 1 ; Attorney-General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSWLR 481; Brogden v Attorney-General [2001] NZCA 208; Garrett & Anor v Mildara Blass Ltd & Ors; Attorney General for the State of South Australia v Garrett [2009] SASC 19; Georganas…

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 Woolworths Group Ltd v Keane

Details

AGLC: Woolworths Group Ltd v Keane [2024] SASC 12
Case: [2024] SASC 12
Decision Date: 2 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woolworths Group Ltd v Keane involved the retail giant Woolworths Group Ltd as the plaintiff and Mr. Keane as the defendant. The dispute arose from Mr. Keane's numerous vexatious legal actions against Woolworths, which the company sought to have him declared a vexatious litigant. The proceedings were heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Woolworths argued that Mr. Keane's continuous and frivolous legal claims against the company were not only a burden but also an abuse of the judicial process. The court was tasked with determining whether Mr. Keane's conduct met the threshold for being declared a vexatious litigant under the relevant legislation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Keane's actions constituted vexatious litigation, warranting a declaration under the relevant statutory provisions. This required the court to examine the nature and frequency of the claims made by Mr. Keane, the absence of any bona fide prospect of success, and the impact of these claims on Woolworths. The court considered whether Mr. Keane's actions demonstrated a pattern of misuse of legal processes for an improper purpose, such as harassing or intimidating Woolworths.

In reaching its decision, the court assessed the evidence presented regarding the history and nature of Mr. Keane's litigation against Woolworths. The court found that Mr. Keane's numerous claims were indeed frivolous and without merit, with no genuine prospect of success. It was noted that these claims were repetitive and made for an improper purpose, causing significant inconvenience and expense to Woolworths. Based on these findings, the court concluded that Mr. Keane's conduct warranted the declaration of vexatious litigant, thereby restricting his ability to commence proceedings against Woolworths without prior court approval.

Orders