Seidler v University of New South Wales (No 3) [2011] FCA 1330

Seidler v University of New South Wales (No 3) [2011] FCA 1330

The power under r 6.02 was enlivened because the proceedings before Cowdroy J, Flick J and Stone J, and the two leave applications before Perram J, were abuses of process. Ms Seidler's repeated attempts to relitigate matters already determined showed a failure to accept the finality of litigation, and her filing of 14 wholly meritless interlocutory applications, together with the Court's understanding that she sought to file three further applications after judgment was reserved, showed that she posed a risk to the orderly conduct of the Court's business and could not use litigation responsibly. A general order was warranted because a limited order would likely lead her to broaden the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Vexatious Proceedings / Court's Own Motion Consideration and Determination of Orders Under R 6.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
Outcome
Orders made preventing Kathryn Seidler from continuing or commencing proceedings in the Federal Court without leave of the Court.
Legal Topics
['vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'leave to Commence or Continue Proceedings' 'finality of Litigation' 'court Supervision of Parties']
['practice and Procedure'] ['vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'leave to Commence or Continue Proceedings' 'finality of Litigation' 'court Supervision of Parties']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Vexatious Proceedings / Court's Own Motion Consideration and Determination of Orders Under R 6.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the power under r 6.02 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 was enlivened because Ms Seidler had started vexatious proceedings.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to prevent Ms Seidler from commencing any fresh proceedings, or continuing any present proceedings, in the Federal Court without leave.' 'Whether any leave restriction should be limited to the present respondents or expressed generally.']

Ratio Decidendi

The power under r 6.02 was enlivened because the proceedings before Cowdroy J, Flick J and Stone J, and the two leave applications before Perram J, were abuses of process. Ms Seidler's repeated attempts to relitigate matters already determined showed a failure to accept the finality of litigation, and her filing of 14 wholly meritless interlocutory applications, together with the Court's understanding that she sought to file three further applications after judgment was reserved, showed that she posed a risk to the orderly conduct of the Court's business and could not use litigation responsibly. A general order was warranted because a limited order would likely lead her to broaden the...

Court Disposition

Orders made preventing Kathryn Seidler from continuing or commencing proceedings in the Federal Court without leave of the Court.

Orders

  • ['Kathryn Seidler not continue with any proceeding commenced by her in this Court without the leave of the Court.' 'Kathryn Seidler not commence any proceeding in this Court without the leave of the Court.' 'These orders be entered forthwith.']