Yap v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2009] FCA 1159

Yap v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2009] FCA 1159

The material relied on by Mrs Yap was not fresh evidence but a reventilation of past allegations and material from earlier cases; the proposed proceedings sought in substance to appeal or unravel earlier judgments and orders, disclosed no prima facie grounds, and were an abuse of process. Leave was refused to the first applicant and the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Issue Proceedings by a Vexatious Litigant / Application Dated 15 September 2009 Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave refused to the first applicant and the second applicant's application was unnecessary.
Legal Topics
['leave to Institute Proceedings' 'fresh Evidence' 'relitigation of Previous Proceedings' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'no Prima Facie Grounds']
['practice and Procedure' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process'] ['leave to Institute Proceedings' 'fresh Evidence' 'relitigation of Previous Proceedings' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'no Prima Facie Grounds']

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

Application for Leave to Issue Proceedings by a Vexatious Litigant / Application Dated 15 September 2009 Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mrs Yap should be granted leave to issue proceedings against the respondents despite the existing order requiring leave of the Court.' 'Whether the material relied on by Mrs Yap was fresh evidence in the relevant sense.' 'Whether the proposed proceedings were an abuse of process because they sought to relitigate or unravel earlier court orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The material relied on by Mrs Yap was not fresh evidence but a reventilation of past allegations and material from earlier cases; the proposed proceedings sought in substance to appeal or unravel earlier judgments and orders, disclosed no prima facie grounds, and were an abuse of process. Leave was refused to the first applicant and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave refused to the first applicant and the second applicant's application was unnecessary.

Orders

  • ['The application dated 15 September 2009 be dismissed.']