De Varda v Austin (No 3) [2019] NSWCA 226

De Varda v Austin (No 3) [2019] NSWCA 226

The orders made by the primary judge under the Vexatious Proceedings Act were in contravention of s 8(3) as the appellants were simply not heard or given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the orders should be set aside; it was not appropriate for the Court of Appeal to itself entertain the application for vexatious proceedings orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'vexatious Proceedings']
['civil Procedure'] ['procedural Fairness' 'vexatious Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in granting relief under the Vexatious Proceedings Act without hearing the appellants' 'Whether the Court should itself entertain the application for orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The orders made by the primary judge under the Vexatious Proceedings Act were in contravention of s 8(3) as the appellants were simply not heard or given an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the orders should be set aside; it was not appropriate for the Court of Appeal to itself entertain the application for vexatious proceedings orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed' "Orders 2 and 3 of Pembroke J's decision made on 8 June 2018 are set aside"]