Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 132

Proietti v Proietti [2023] NSWCA 132

The applicant identified no relevant change and no substantiated misapprehension of fact or law that could justify reopening or setting aside the April 2023 decision or earlier orders. His motion substantially re-agitated complaints already determined after appeal and refusal of special leave, and his successive applications seeking effectively the same relief were vexatious, oppressive and an abuse of process. A Teoh direction was warranted to prevent further abusive applications concerning the same matters.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Stay of Writ of Possession and Setting Aside or Variation of Orders / Court of Appeal Determination of Notice of Motion and Show Cause Hearing Concerning Teoh Direction
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed with indemnity costs; Teoh direction made.
Legal Topics
['dismissal of Proceedings as an Abuse of Process' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'teoh Direction' 'reopening or Setting Aside Judgments and Orders' 'stay of Execution' 'court Appointed Trustees for Sale' 'writ of Possession' 'section 66 G Sale']
['civil Procedure' 'property Law'] ['dismissal of Proceedings as an Abuse of Process' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'teoh Direction' 'reopening or Setting Aside Judgments and Orders' 'stay of Execution' 'court Appointed Trustees for Sale' 'writ of Possession' 'section 66 G Sale']

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 Seeking Stay of Writ of Possession and Setting Aside or Variation of Orders / Court of Appeal Determination of Notice of Motion and Show Cause Hearing Concerning Teoh Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the notice of motion filed on 24 April 2023 should be dismissed as seeking in substance the same relief previously refused.' 'Whether the applicant had established a basis under r 36.16(3A) or r 36.16(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), s 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), or any inherent jurisdiction to set aside or vary the April 2023 orders or earlier orders.' 'Whether a Teoh direction should be made to prevent further vexatious or abusive applications concerning the orders of Kunc J dated 7 July 2022.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant identified no relevant change and no substantiated misapprehension of fact or law that could justify reopening or setting aside the April 2023 decision or earlier orders. His motion substantially re-agitated complaints already determined after appeal and refusal of special leave, and his successive applications seeking effectively the same relief were vexatious, oppressive and an abuse of process. A Teoh direction was warranted to prevent further abusive applications concerning the same matters.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed with indemnity costs; Teoh direction made.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the notice of motion filed on 24 April 2023 with costs, such costs to be on an indemnity basis and paid out of the applicant's share of the net proceedings of sale of the property at Marsfield in respect of which the Court has appointed trustees for sale." 'Order that if Mr Philip Proietti files any...