Batterham v Nauer [2020] NSWCA 204

Batterham v Nauer [2020] NSWCA 204

None of the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal had any prospect of success, as the record showed he had repeatedly commenced proceedings about the same underlying grievance, all found to lack reasonable grounds and to satisfy the statutory definition of vexatious proceedings. The evidence, including the applicant’s correspondence, supported findings that the proceedings were instituted to harass or annoy, and thus leave to appeal was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Peter James Batterham; Respondent: Marcel Andre Nauer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Vexatious Proceedings Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused; applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (nsw), Leave to Appeal, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigant Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (nsw) Leave to Appeal Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter James Batterham

Applicant

Marcel Andre Nauer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Vexatious Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an order prohibiting the applicant from instituting proceedings against the respondent under s 8(7) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the applicant had frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the applicant’s grounds of appeal (judicial bias, factual or legal error) had merit

Ratio Decidendi

None of the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal had any prospect of success, as the record showed he had repeatedly commenced proceedings about the same underlying grievance, all found to lack reasonable grounds and to satisfy the statutory definition of vexatious proceedings. The evidence, including the applicant’s correspondence, supported findings that the proceedings were instituted to harass or annoy, and thus leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused; applicant to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings.