BIENVENU V. HUTCHISON

BIENVENU V. HUTCHISON

There is no substantive ground for dismissing the Crown Solicitor's motion; applicant's contentions regarding delay, procedural interference, invalidity of rules, and lack of bona fide or material are unfounded. All matters raised can be properly considered when the substantive motion is heard by a single justice.

Parties
Applicant: Constance May Bienvenu; Respondent: Robert Burns Hutchison
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 1971
Procedural Posture
Motion / Motion to Dismiss Notice of Motion
Outcome
motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Procedure, Vexatious Litigants, Court Jurisdiction
Procedure Vexatious Litigants Court Jurisdiction

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Constance May Bienvenu

Applicant

Robert Burns Hutchison

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion / Motion to Dismiss Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion brought by the Crown Solicitor should be dismissed for unwarranted delay
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Solicitor's motion improperly impedes the applicant's existing proceedings
  3. 3 Validity of Order 63, Rule 6, sub-rule (1) of the Rules of the High Court of Australia

Ratio Decidendi

There is no substantive ground for dismissing the Crown Solicitor's motion; applicant's contentions regarding delay, procedural interference, invalidity of rules, and lack of bona fide or material are unfounded. All matters raised can be properly considered when the substantive motion is heard by a single justice.

Court Disposition

motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Motion dismissed with costs