Granich & Associates v Yap [2004] FCA 1567

Granich & Associates v Yap [2004] FCA 1567

Mrs Yap's extensive and repeated litigation against Granich & Associates, including relitigation of issues already determined and numerous unsuccessful applications and appeals, satisfied the requirements of Order 21 rule 2 for a vexatious proceedings order. The repetitive nature, absence of reasonable grounds, and burdens imposed justified the making of a restraining order.

Parties
Applicant: Granich & Associates; Respondent: Yap Cheng See
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment on Application for Vexatious Litigant Orders
Outcome
Orders restraining respondent from instituting or continuing proceedings against applicant without leave of Court; costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigants, Abuse of Process, Federal Court Procedure
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigants Abuse of Process Federal Court Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Granich & Associates

Applicant

Yap Cheng See

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Judgment on Application for Vexatious Litigant Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether an order should be made under Order 21 rule 2 restraining the respondent from instituting or continuing proceedings against the applicant without leave

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Yap's extensive and repeated litigation against Granich & Associates, including relitigation of issues already determined and numerous unsuccessful applications and appeals, satisfied the requirements of Order 21 rule 2 for a vexatious proceedings order. The repetitive nature, absence of reasonable grounds, and burdens imposed justified the making of a restraining order.

Court Disposition

Orders restraining respondent from instituting or continuing proceedings against applicant without leave of Court; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent shall not, without leave of the Court, institute any proceeding against the applicant in the Court.
  • Any proceeding instituted by the respondent against the applicant in the Court before the making of this Order shall not be continued by the respondent without leave of the Court.