The Explanatory Notes for the Vexatious Proceedings Bill 2005 (Qld) state the purpose of a vexatious litigant declaration:
“A vexatious litigant is a person who demonstrates particular behaviours in the pursuance of legal actions through the courts. These behaviours include taking legal action without any reasonable grounds, a repetition of arguments which have already been rejected, disregard for the court’s practices and rulings, and persistent attempts to abuse the court’s processes. The consequences of pursuing such actions include wastage of public resources and the harassment and annoyance of defendants in litigation that lacks a reasonable basis.”
Obtaining an order
A court can make an order on its own initiative, or on application by:
- the Attorney-General;
- the Crown solicitor;
- the court’s registrar;
- a person against whom another person has instituted or conducted a vexatious proceeding; or
- a person who has a sufficient interest in the matter.
Applying for leave
For a vexatious litigant to apply for leave to institute proceedings they must file an affidavit with their application which includes all the times that they have applied for leave and all proceedings they have instituted in an Australian court or tribunal.
Before a court can grant leave, they must order the applicant to serve a copy of their application and affidavit to the person against whom they propose to institute proceedings (among others), and that person must be given the opportunity to be heard.
The court can dismiss the application if it considers the proceedings to be vexatious, and can do this without a hearing. It must give the applicant a copy of the order dismissing the application, as well as reasons for the decision. The decision about the application cannot be appealed.
As at February 2022, there were 27 vexatious litigants on the official list maintained by the Queensland Supreme Court registrar.
Other legislation
The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (often referred to as “the UCPR”) also provides remedies against vexatious proceedings, but on a case-by-case basis rather than via a declaration against a specific person. For example, it allows:
- the court registrar to refer to the court any application it considers to be an abuse of court process, frivolous or vexatious;
- the court to strike out all or part of a pleading if it is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of court process; and
- the court to restrict a further application from any party that has made an application that is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
There is also Commonwealth legislation that has similar provisions, including the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
Vexatious litigant examples
- Millane became the Australia’s first declared vexatious litigant in 1930. Millane was an inventor and transport entrepreneur whose persistence in using the courts in the 1920s led to the Victorian parliament enacting of legislation to try to stop him. The legislation provided the model for similar laws in superior courts around the country.
- Bradley is the most recently declared vexatious litigant in Queensland. In making the ruling in the District Court in May 2021, the judge described Bradley’s latest appeal as a “confused hodgepodge of confusion” and said that Bradley “has been incorrigible in his attempts to vex the parties he chooses to name as respondents to his applications”. When invited to make submissions as to why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant, Bradley “made submissions of the same disordered kind, which merely demonstrated further the need for an order to be made to prevent any further abuse of the judicial process by him”, the judge said.
- Conomy is a recently declared vexatious litigant in the High Court. Conomy made more than a dozen applications to the Supreme Court of Western Australia and the High Court in relation to a stalking conviction, and more than a dozen applications to the High Court in relation to a conviction for breaching a Violence Restraining Order. In making the vexatious litigant order in March 2019, the judge stated: “The history of Mr Conomy’s proceedings demonstrates his determination to persist in the pursuit of what is evidently an unfortunate obsession that serves no purpose other than to waste the Court’s time and resources in order to indulge his unreasonable sense of grievance.”
How Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers can help
For any commercial litigation matter, contact Gibbs Wright Litigation Lawyers for a discussion about your options.
