Attorney General for New South Wales v Collier [2021] NSWSC 1483

Attorney General for New South Wales v Collier [2021] NSWSC 1483

The defendant established no basis for any of the interlocutory orders sought. The affidavit filed with the summons sufficiently identified evidence relied upon and was not required to plead or argue the Attorney-General's case; the material concerning the Registrar did not come close to establishing apprehended bias; the proposed traffic-fine relief was unrelated to the vexatious-proceedings application and no prepared cross-claim or cross-summons was before the Court; the affidavit material and solicitor communications did not warrant the relief sought; and no basis was shown to reopen earlier orders or award the defendant costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Proceedings Seeking Orders Under S 8(7) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 / Hearing of Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 8 September 2021 Seeking Strike Out of the Plaintiff's Summons and Other Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
The defendant's notice of motion was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'apprehended Bias' 'affidavit Evidence' 'cross Claim or Cross Summons' 'costs in the Cause']
['civil Procedure' 'vexatious Proceedings'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'apprehended Bias' 'affidavit Evidence' 'cross Claim or Cross Summons' 'costs in the Cause']

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

Notice of Motion in Proceedings Seeking Orders Under S 8(7) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 / Hearing of Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 8 September 2021 Seeking Strike Out of the Plaintiff's Summons and Other Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Attorney-General's summons should be struck out because it was allegedly served without a supporting affidavit or explanation of the case to be answered" 'Whether a Registrar of the Court should be prevented from further participation in the proceedings for alleged judicial and perceived bias' 'Whether leave should be granted to file and serve a cross-claim or cross-summons invoking s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and seeking injunctions against Revenue New South Wales concerning traffic or speeding fines' 'Whether affidavits filed with the summons should be struck out' "Whether a solicitor within the Crown Solicitor's Office should be restrained from alleged bullying and harassing behaviour" 'Whether interlocutory orders in earlier proceedings or filing fees for the notice of motion provided a basis for relief or costs orders in favour of the defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant established no basis for any of the interlocutory orders sought. The affidavit filed with the summons sufficiently identified evidence relied upon and was not required to plead or argue the Attorney-General's case; the material concerning the Registrar did not come close to establishing apprehended bias; the proposed traffic-fine relief was unrelated to the vexatious-proceedings application and no prepared cross-claim or cross-summons was before the Court; the affidavit material and solicitor communications did not warrant the relief sought; and no basis was shown to reopen earlier orders or award the defendant costs.

Court Disposition

The defendant's notice of motion was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed by the defendant on 8 September 2021 be dismissed.' 'Any further notice of motion that might be filed by the defendant for the summary dismissal of the proceedings is to be listed at the same time as the hearing of the substantive proceedings.' "The plaintiff's costs of the notice of...