James Ashleigh Davy and Kimberley Ann Evans (as Executors of the Estate of the Late Kate Louise Davy) v Van Gorp [2022] NSWSC 466

James Ashleigh Davy and Kimberley Ann Evans (as Executors of the Estate of the Late Kate Louise Davy) v Van Gorp [2022] NSWSC 466

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.10 and Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 67 did not operate because there were no further or current proceedings to be stayed. However, the Court's inherent jurisdiction justified a proportional restraint because there was a substantial risk that the Respondent would bring repetitive claims against the estate and executors concerning the same or similar facts, the restraint did not prevent appeals or unrelated claims, it operated only while the identified costs orders remained unpaid, and the Respondent could seek leave of a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application for Restraint on Further Proceedings / Application in Equity Applications List
Outcome
Application granted; Respondent restrained from commencing or continuing specified proceedings until payment of identified costs orders or leave of a Judge, and ordered to pay the Applicants' costs.
Legal Topics
['stay of Proceedings' 'inherent Jurisdiction' 'abuse of Process' 'costs Orders' 'restraint on Commencing Further Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['stay of Proceedings' 'inherent Jurisdiction' 'abuse of Process' 'costs Orders' 'restraint on Commencing Further Proceedings']

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

Civil Procedure Application for Restraint on Further Proceedings / Application in Equity Applications List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.10 authorised a stay or restraint where the costs orders arose from dismissed motions and no further similar proceedings had been commenced.' 'Whether Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 67 authorised a stay where there were no proceedings before the Court to be stayed.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to restrain the Respondent from commencing or continuing further proceedings arising from the same or similar facts until outstanding costs orders were paid or leave was obtained.']

Ratio Decidendi

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.10 and Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 67 did not operate because there were no further or current proceedings to be stayed. However, the Court's inherent jurisdiction justified a proportional restraint because there was a substantial risk that the Respondent would bring repetitive claims against the estate and executors concerning the same or similar facts, the restraint did not prevent appeals or unrelated claims, it operated only while the identified costs orders remained unpaid, and the Respondent could seek leave of a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Court Disposition

Application granted; Respondent restrained from commencing or continuing specified proceedings until payment of identified costs orders or leave of a Judge, and ordered to pay the Applicants' costs.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent, Mr Sean Cornelius Van Gorp, is restrained from commencing or continuing in any Court or Tribunal any proceedings against either or both of James Ashleigh Davy and Kimberley Ann Evans (other than by a claim in the nature of an appeal, cross-appeal, defence, cross-claim or cross-summons) which arise...