M v Monash IVF Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1429

M v Monash IVF Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1429

The plaintiff's extensive litigation history, lack of success, prior declaration as vexatious by the Federal Court, repeated agitation of the same subject matter against the same defendants, and conduct in the present proceedings showed that she had frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings. Her claim had been dismissed because no discernible cause of action was apparent, and her further submissions were confused and incomprehensible. The statutory threshold for a vexatious proceedings order was satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for a Vexatious Proceedings Order Under S 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (nsw) / Consequential Orders Following Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Action
Outcome
Motion granted.
Legal Topics
['vexatious Litigants' 'vexatious Proceedings Order' 'abuse of Process' 'finality of Litigation' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['vexatious Litigants' 'vexatious Proceedings Order' 'abuse of Process' 'finality of Litigation' 'costs']

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 for a Vexatious Proceedings Order Under S 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (nsw) / Consequential Orders Following Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be prohibited under s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) from instituting proceedings in NSW against the defendants or their employees, directors, officers or legal representatives without leave of the Court.' 'Whether the plaintiff had frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia.' "Whether the plaintiff's conduct and litigation history showed repeated attempts to re-agitate the same subject matter against the same defendants."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's extensive litigation history, lack of success, prior declaration as vexatious by the Federal Court, repeated agitation of the same subject matter against the same defendants, and conduct in the present proceedings showed that she had frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings. Her claim had been dismissed because no discernible cause of action was apparent, and her further submissions were confused and incomprehensible. The statutory threshold for a vexatious proceedings order was satisfied.

Court Disposition

Motion granted.

Orders

  • ['Ms Seidler is prohibited from instituting proceedings in NSW against Monash IVF Pty Ltd, Monash IVF Group, or any of their employees, agents, officers, directors or legal representatives without leave of the Court.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings and the motion."]