South Eastern Sydney Local Health District v Clarke (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 964

South Eastern Sydney Local Health District v Clarke (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 964

The notice of motion was dismissed because it was filed in contravention of Schmidt AJ's orders of 2 February 2021 requiring leave before further filing. In any event, the subsequent orders made on 9 February 2021 stayed prosecution of the motion, and ss 4, 5 and 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) meant Ms Clarke could not take the interlocutory step without complying with the statutory leave procedure. Her affidavits did not meet the criteria in s 14(3), requiring dismissal under s 15(1)(a). Even if the statutory requirements had been met, the motion would have been dismissed because it was vexatious and/or had no prima facie grounds, and the individual prayers either sought...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Vexatious Proceedings; Notice of Motion / Determination of the Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 5 February 2021 After Orders Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (nsw) Had Been Made Against Her
Outcome
The defendant's notice of motion filed 5 February 2021 was dismissed, with costs to the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['vexatious Litigants' 'vexatious Proceedings Orders' 'leave to Institute Proceedings' 'interlocutory Applications' 'pro Bono Referral' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['vexatious Litigants' 'vexatious Proceedings Orders' 'leave to Institute Proceedings' 'interlocutory Applications' 'pro Bono Referral' 'costs']

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; Vexatious Proceedings; Notice of Motion / Determination of the Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed 5 February 2021 After Orders Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (nsw) Had Been Made Against Her

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be permitted to move on the notice of motion filed 5 February 2021 despite earlier orders restricting further filings and subsequent vexatious proceedings orders.' 'Whether the defendant had complied with the procedure for leave to institute proceedings under s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW).' "Whether the prayers seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' summons, stays of costs or enforcement, leave to file cross-claims, setting aside of judgments, pro bono assistance, or costs should be granted."]

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because it was filed in contravention of Schmidt AJ's orders of 2 February 2021 requiring leave before further filing. In any event, the subsequent orders made on 9 February 2021 stayed prosecution of the motion, and ss 4, 5 and 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) meant Ms Clarke could not take the interlocutory step without complying with the statutory leave procedure. Her affidavits did not meet the criteria in s 14(3), requiring dismissal under s 15(1)(a). Even if the statutory requirements had been met, the motion would have been dismissed because it was vexatious and/or had no prima facie grounds, and the individual prayers either sought...

Court Disposition

The defendant's notice of motion filed 5 February 2021 was dismissed, with costs to the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ["The defendant's notice of motion filed 5 February 2021 is dismissed." "The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the notice of motion."]