WorkCover Corporation of South Australia v Moore-McQuillan
[2017] SASC 78
•31 May 2017
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
WORKCOVER CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v MOORE-MCQUILLAN
[2017] SASC 78
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Blue
31 May 2017
PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS - VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS AND PROCEEDINGS
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
On 16 December 2016 reasons were delivered on the plaintiff’s application for orders prohibiting the defendant from instituting proceedings in a prescribed court without permission of the Court and staying existing proceedings: WorkCover Corporation of South Australia v Moore-McQuillan [2016] SASC 191. It was concluded that the defendant had instituted 63 proceedings without reasonable ground and the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant instituted a further 26 proceedings without reasonable ground.
On 16 December 2016 orders were made, amongst other things, staying all existing proceedings instituted by the defendant within a prescribed court with certain defined exceptions.
It was subsequently discovered that the formal order identifying proceedings stayed and not stayed did not accord with the reasons for judgment.
Held:
1. It is appropriate to vary the order pursuant to rule 242(1) of the Supreme Court (Civil) Rules 2006 to correct errors in the stay order (at [6]).
2. Order made correcting the stay order to accord with the reasons for judgment (at [9]).
Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 39; Supreme Court (Civil) Rules 2006 (SA) r 242(1), referred to.
WORKCOVER CORPORATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v MOORE-MCQUILLAN
[2017] SASC 78Civil:
BLUE J:
On 16 December 2016 I delivered reasons for judgment on an application by WorkCover Corporation of South Australia (WorkCover) seeking orders pursuant to section 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) prohibiting Markham Moore-McQuillan from instituting proceedings in a prescribed court without the permission of the Supreme Court and staying existing proceedings in prescribed courts.[1] Annexed to my reasons was a Table of Proceedings summarising my findings in respect of the 89 underlying proceedings alleged to be vexatious.
[1] WorkCover Corporation of South Australia v Moore-McQuillan [2016] SASC 191.
I concluded that Mr Moore-McQuillan had instituted 63 underlying proceedings without reasonable ground. These underlying proceedings included action numbers 2847,[2] 2853,[3] 2855,[4] 2860[5] and 2861[6] of 2004 heard by Olsson AJ and hence the appeal against order 4 made by Olsson AJ on 26 July 2012 in consolidated file 680 of 2003 insofar as order 4 dismissed those proceedings.[7] They also included action numbers 5489[8] and 5490[9] of 1998 heard by Olsson AJ and hence the appeal against order 9 made by Olsson AJ on 26 July 2012 in consolidated file 680 of 2003 insofar as Mr Moore-McQuillan appeals against order 9 dismissing or otherwise determining those proceedings.[10]
[2] At [598] of the reasons. See also the table.
[3] At [625] of the reasons. See also the table.
[4] At [631] of the reasons. See also the table.
[5] At [628] of the reasons. See also the table.
[6] At [634] of the reasons. See also the table.
[7] At [1034] of the reasons.
[8] At [650] of the reasons.
[9] At [696] of the reasons.
[10] At [1031] of the reasons.
I concluded that WorkCover had not proved that Mr Moore-McQuillan instituted a further 26 proceedings without reasonable ground. These underlying proceedings included action numbers 2846,[11] 2848,[12] 2851,[13] 2852,[14] 2862[15] and 2864[16] of 2004 heard by Olsson AJ and hence the appeal against order 4 made by Olsson AJ on 26 July 2012 in consolidated file 680 of 2003 insofar as Mr Moore-McQuillan appeals against order 4 dismissing or otherwise determining those proceedings.[17] They also included action numbers 5494 and 5496 of 1998[18] heard by Olsson AJ and hence the appeal against orders 6 and 8 respectively made by Olsson AJ on 26 July 2012 in consolidated file 680 of 2003 insofar as Mr Moore-McQuillan appeals against orders 6 and 8 dismissing or otherwise determining those proceedings.[19]
[11] At [595] of the reasons. See also the table.
[12] At [602] of the reasons. See also the table.
[13] At [606] of the reasons. See also the table.
[14] At [610] of the reasons. See also the table.
[15] At [614] of the reasons. See also the table.
[16] At [618] of the reasons. See also the table.
[17] At [1034] of the reasons.
[18] At [658] of the reasons. See also the table.
[19] At [1031] of the reasons.
On 16 December 2016 I made orders that were intended to reflect my reasons for judgment. Order 2 effected a stay of underlying proceedings and was expressed in the following terms:
2.All existing proceedings which have been instituted by the defendant in a prescribed court within the meaning of section 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) are stayed under section 39(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) except the defendant’s appeal dated 21 May 2012 in respect of:
(a)orders 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 (other than files 5489 and 5490 of 1998), 10 and 11; and
(b)order 4 in respect only of files 2842 of 2004, 2845 of 2004, 2846 of 2004, 2848 of 2004, 2851 of 2004, 2852 of 2004, 2862 of 2004, 2864 of 2004 and 2238 of 2005,
made by Olsson AJ on 26 July 2012 in consolidated file 680 of 2003.
On 10 April 2017 by application made on that date WorkCover drew attention to discrepancies between the underlying proceedings to be stayed according to my reasons for judgment and the table on the one hand and the formal order on the other hand.
Upon reviewing the formal orders, it is apparent that they do not accurately reflect my reasons for judgment. Orders 6 and 8 should have been included in order 2(a) and actions 5489 and 5490 of 1998 should have been excluded from order 9 in order 2(a). Actions 2846, 2848, 2851, 2852, 2862 and 2864 of 2004 should have been included in order 2(b) and thereby excluded from the stay and actions 2847, 2853, 2855, 2860 and 2861 of 2004 should not have been included in order 2(b) and thereby subject to the stay.[20]
[20] WorkCover suggested that the reference to order 5 should be removed from Order 2(a) made on 16 December 2016 because that order was made in favour of Mr Moore-McQuillan. Strictly, this is correct but there is no harm in leaving the reference to order 5 in Order 2(a).
Rule 242(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) empowers the Court on its own initiative or on application by a party to correct an error in a judgment or order.
On 15 May 2017, a letter was sent to both parties enclosing a table of proposed corrections to the orders made on 16 December 2016 and inviting either party to identify by 26 May 2017 any proposed correction to which objection was made and in brief terms why the party objected to the correction. The letter indicated that the corrections would be made administratively in chambers if neither party objected by 26 May 2017. The time for Mr Moore-McQuillan to object was subsequently extended at his request to 29 May 2017. No objections were received from either party.
Conclusion
I make the following orders:
1.Order 2 made on 16 December 2016 be corrected pursuant to rule 242 of the Rules such that order 2 now provides:
“2. All existing proceedings which have been instituted by the defendant in a prescribed court within the meaning of section 39 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) are stayed under section 39(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) except the defendant’s appeal dated 21 May 2012 in respect of:
(a)orders 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 (other than files 5489 and 5490 of 1998), 10 and 11; and
(b)order 4 in respect only of files 2842 of 2004, 2845 of 2004, 2846 of 2004, 2848 of 2004, 2851 of 2004, 2852 of 2004, 2862 of 2004, 2864 of 2004 and 2238 of 2005;
made by Olsson AJ on 26 July 2012 in consolidated file 680 of 2003.”
2.There be no order as to costs with respect to the Plaintiff’s application dated 10 April 2017 or this order.
1
1
1