Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (No 4) [2016] NSWCA 285

Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (No 4) [2016] NSWCA 285

The applicant had not shown cause why any of the three further motions should not be dismissed. The earlier proceedings had been finally disposed of and the orders entered, so the motions were prima facie hopeless unless they fell within a limited exception to finality; none did. The motions sought relief without a legal foundation, attempted to relitigate matters already decided, were unrelated to any extant proceeding, or advanced irrational and untenable claims. Requiring the respondents to deal with them would be oppressive, so the motions were vexatious and an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Practice / On the Papers Determination of Whether Three Notices of Motion Filed After a Teoh Order Should Be Summarily Dismissed as Vexatious and an Abuse of Process
Outcome
Motions dated 6 June 2016, 26 July 2016 and 16 August 2016 dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process.
Legal Topics
['teoh Order' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'finality of Litigation' 'notices of Motion' 'subpoenas' 'freezing Orders' 'contempt of Court']
['civil Procedure' 'practice and Procedure'] ['teoh Order' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'finality of Litigation' 'notices of Motion' 'subpoenas' 'freezing Orders' 'contempt of Court']

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

Practice / On the Papers Determination of Whether Three Notices of Motion Filed After a Teoh Order Should Be Summarily Dismissed as Vexatious and an Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had shown cause in writing why the motions dated 6 June 2016, 26 July 2016 and 16 August 2016 should not be dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process.' 'Whether any of the further motions warranted being listed for a hearing with respondent participation.' "Whether the further motions fell within any exception to the principle of finality after the applicant's judicial review summons had been dismissed and orders entered."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had not shown cause why any of the three further motions should not be dismissed. The earlier proceedings had been finally disposed of and the orders entered, so the motions were prima facie hopeless unless they fell within a limited exception to finality; none did. The motions sought relief without a legal foundation, attempted to relitigate matters already decided, were unrelated to any extant proceeding, or advanced irrational and untenable claims. Requiring the respondents to deal with them would be oppressive, so the motions were vexatious and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Motions dated 6 June 2016, 26 July 2016 and 16 August 2016 dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process.

Orders

  • ["Each of Mr Quach's motions dated 6 June 2016, 26 July 2016 and 16 August 2016 respectively should be dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process."]