12 Oct 2022
The summons to discharge the 23 December 2011 restrictive litigation order was dismissed because the applicant provided no credible or new evidence of a material change in circumstances; prior repeated refusals of leave demonstrated the order's continuing necessity to prevent vexatious or ungrounded proceedings.
31 Jan 2022
All three statutory conditions under section 27 were satisfied: the Director is an affected person, the Defendant habitually and persistently instituted vexatious and manifestly groundless non-refoulement proceedings by repeatedly re-arguing the same decision across forums and filing proceedings without particulars (demonstrating intent to delay removal), and the Defendant had an opportunity to be heard; accordingly a section 27 order was warranted imposing leave and temporal and frequency limits and awarding costs to the Director.
11 Sept 2017
The March 7, 2017 order required leave of the Court of First Instance before instituting proceedings; the appellant did not obtain such leave before filing the appeal, therefore the appeal was incompetent and was dismissed and costs were awarded.
28 Jun 2016
The judge recused himself because of a past association with the 12th defendant's accounting firm and, given the existence of a vexatious litigant order against the plaintiff, the plaintiff's failure to plead locus standi and the potential prematurity of the relief sought, the judge declined to make substantive orders and referred the matter back to the judge who made the vexatious litigant order, directing the plaintiff to take steps within 14 days to regularise the position.