Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 6) [2012] NSWCA 260

Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 6) [2012] NSWCA 260

The application raised no new facts or arguments not already addressed in prior proceedings or earlier applications. The material relied on ought to have been raised in the original proceedings or in previous applications. No basis was shown for reopening or revisiting the decisions, and the repeated applications constituted an abuse of process and were vexatious. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Elaine Teoh; First Respondent: Hunters Hill Council; Second Respondent: Ross Ernest Williams
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion (application) / Application to Reopen Proceedings and for Stay of Costs Orders, Court of Appeal
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed. Consequential orders regarding future applications imposed.
Legal Topics
Application to Reopen Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Vexatious Proceedings, Stay of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Application to Reopen Proceedings Abuse of Process Vexatious Proceedings Stay of Costs Orders

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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elaine Teoh

Applicant

Hunters Hill Council

First Respondent

Ross Ernest Williams

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion (application) / Application to Reopen Proceedings and for Stay of Costs Orders, Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has raised any new matter justifying the reopening of proceedings under UCPR, r 36.16
  2. 2 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of process or is vexatious
  3. 3 Whether a stay of costs orders should be granted pending rehearing

Ratio Decidendi

The application raised no new facts or arguments not already addressed in prior proceedings or earlier applications. The material relied on ought to have been raised in the original proceedings or in previous applications. No basis was shown for reopening or revisiting the decisions, and the repeated applications constituted an abuse of process and were vexatious. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed. Consequential orders regarding future applications imposed.

Orders

  • Notice of motion filed 26 April 2012 dismissed.
  • Should the applicant file any further notice of motion in this matter pursuant to UCPR, r 36.16, the applicant must at the same time file a document, comprising no more than five pages, showing cause why this Court should not, in Chambers, summarily dismiss the notice of motion as vexatious and an abuse of process.