Bar-Mordecai Application re Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 [2013] NSWSC 532

Bar-Mordecai Application re Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 [2013] NSWSC 532

The summons was dismissed because the relief sought was a blatant attempt to relitigate matters already resolved by Beech-Jones J when confined leave was granted for the applicant's reinstatement application before the Medical Tribunal. The Court also had no identified jurisdiction to determine the reinstatement application itself, and the further directions sought in relation to the Tribunal had already been dealt with and rejected. The proposed proceedings therefore qualified as vexatious proceedings under ss 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, requiring refusal under the Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Institute Proceedings Where a Vexatious Proceedings Order Had Been Made in Respect of the Applicant / On the Papers; in Chambers
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
['vexatious Proceedings' 'leave to Institute Proceedings' 'medical Tribunal Reinstatement Proceedings' 'relitigation of Previously Determined Matters']
['practice and Procedure'] ['vexatious Proceedings' 'leave to Institute Proceedings' 'medical Tribunal Reinstatement Proceedings' 'relitigation of Previously Determined Matters']

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 Institute Proceedings Where a Vexatious Proceedings Order Had Been Made in Respect of the Applicant / On the Papers; in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to institute proceedings or obtain orders relating to proceedings in the Medical Tribunal of New South Wales despite restrictions arising from his status as a vexatious litigant.' 'Whether the summons attempted to relitigate matters that had already been resolved by an order of a Judge of the Supreme Court.' "Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to determine the applicant's reinstatement as a medical practitioner or direct the Tribunal in the manner sought."]

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the relief sought was a blatant attempt to relitigate matters already resolved by Beech-Jones J when confined leave was granted for the applicant's reinstatement application before the Medical Tribunal. The Court also had no identified jurisdiction to determine the reinstatement application itself, and the further directions sought in relation to the Tribunal had already been dealt with and rejected. The proposed proceedings therefore qualified as vexatious proceedings under ss 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, requiring refusal under the Act.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • ['The summons filed on 9 April 2013 is dismissed in accordance with s 15(1)(b) and/or s 15(1)(c) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.']