Vexatious Litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005
Vexatious litigation poses a serious challenge to the administration of justice in Queensland.
While access to the courts is a fundamental right, some individuals misuse legal processes by filing repetitive, unmeritorious, or harassing proceedings.
Such conduct can burden defendants with unnecessary costs, waste valuable judicial resources, and undermine the integrity of the court system.
Left unchecked, vexatious proceedings can become a tool for harassment rather than a mechanism for resolving genuine disputes.
To address this problem, the Queensland Parliament enacted the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld).
The Act gives the Supreme Court the power to declare a person a vexatious litigant and to restrict their ability to commence or continue legal proceedings without leave of the Court.
Importantly, the Act strikes a balance: it prevents the abuse of court processes while still preserving the right of vexatious litigants to pursue legitimate claims, provided they satisfy certain safeguards.
In this article, our commercial litigation lawyers examine the purpose of the Act, the meaning of “vexatious proceedings” and “frequently instituted” litigation, the types of orders the Court can make, and the practical strategies available to defend against vexatious litigation.
Underlying Purpose of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005
The Supreme Court in Crown Solicitor v Bird [2019] QSC 147 articulated that the underlying purpose of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (the “Act”) is to restrict vexatious proceedings and protect the legal system.
The primary purpose of the 2005 Act, as identified by both the Court and the Crown Solicitor, is to restrict vexatious proceedings to:
- Protect the Court’s processes.
- Avoid unnecessary wastage of the Court’s time and resources; and
- Protect the community (including potential defendants) from repeated institution of baseless proceedings.
The Court affirmed this purpose, noting the text of the Act supports it, the explanatory notes to the Vexatious Proceedings Bill 2005 (Qld), and the second reading speech.
Specific mechanisms within the Act, such as the requirement for leave to institute proceedings (s 10), the permanent stay of proceedings instituted without leave (s 10(2)), and procedural safeguards for applications for leave (s 11, and s 13), are cited by the Court as implementing this purpose.
The Court also found that an additional purpose is safeguarding access to the courts for vexatious litigants.
The Court expressly stated that, in addition to the purposes above, the 2005 Act aims:
to provide safeguards for the rights of a vexatious litigant to access the courts, by providing that he or she may still bring proceedings if he or she meets certain preconditions under the Act and by providing for the setting aside or variation of the vexatious proceedings order.
Thus, while the Act imposes restrictions, it also ensures that a vexatious litigant is not categorically excluded from legal process and may apply to have the order set aside or varied if justified.
The Court acknowledged that the Act represents a balance between preventing the abuse of process caused by vexatious litigants and preserving access to justice, a fundamental common law right.
The Act’s remedial character is highlighted, as it seeks both to control vexatious litigation and provide avenues for legitimate claims to reach the courts after appropriate scrutiny.
The Court discussed the legislative history, noting that the 2005 Act departed from its predecessor by no longer excluding applications to set aside or vary vexatious proceedings orders from the definition of “proceeding,” thereby reinforcing an intention to regulate such applications within a strict but comprehensively accessible framework.
The Explanatory Notes and second reading speech confirm the intention to address litigation that:
clog[s] the Court system, waste[s] public resources and force[s] defendants to respond and incur expense,
… while ensuring the Act:
provides balance to the loss or limitation of the right to bring legal actions,
… for individuals subject to vexatious proceedings orders.
The Court stated that the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 is designed to restrict the institution of vexatious proceedings to protect the Court, its resources, and the community from groundless or relentless litigation, while at the same time providing procedures and safeguards to ensure a person subject to such orders retains an avenue to access the courts for legitimate claims.
Vexatious Litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005
To be successful in a proceeding under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), the threshold issues the Court must determine are:
- Whether the person in question has instituted or conducted “vexatious proceedings” in Australia.
- Whether the person has “frequently” instituted or conducted such vexatious proceedings.
I will explain in more detail below.
Whether the person in question has instituted or conducted “vexatious proceedings” in Australia.
The term “vexatious proceeding” is defined in the Schedule Dictionary of the Act to include:
- a proceeding that is an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal;
- a proceeding instituted to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for another wrongful purpose;
- a proceeding instituted or pursued without reasonable ground; and
- a proceeding conducted in a way to harass or annoy, cause delay or detriment, or achieve another wrongful purpose.
In Praljak v Bond University Ltd [2024] QSC 45, the Supreme Court of Queensland outlined that a proceeding is considered “vexatious” within the meaning of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) if it is conducted as an abuse of process, instituted and pursued without any reasonable ground, or contains scandalous assertions without material facts.
The court specifically referenced instances where the plaintiff was unable to produce a Statement of Claim disclosing tenable causes of action over a protracted period, and where documents filed contained irrelevant and scandalous allegations.
The judge concluded that such conduct satisfied the threshold for vexatious proceedings as set out in the Act, noting the need for orders to control vexatious behaviour and prevent further similar proceedings without leave of the court.
In GRC Crown Law v Mathews [2017] QSC 64, the court found that it was not necessary to make findings as to the respondent’s purpose in bringing the proceedings. Instead, it focused on the pattern of conduct and repeated institution and conduct of vexatious proceedings.
Even disabilities or impairments did not displace the finding that the respondent frequently instituted and conducted vexatious proceedings.
The court clarified that a vexatious proceedings order is not an absolute bar, as leave can be obtained for legitimate claims.
In Mowen v Rockhampton Regional Council [2017] QSC 295, the court explained that to make a vexatious proceedings order, it must be satisfied that the person has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, and that these have been initiated or conducted frequently.
A “vexatious proceeding” includes abuse of process, proceedings brought to harass or annoy, cause delay or detriment, for another wrongful purpose, or without reasonable ground.
The court emphasised that “vexatious” means something more than a lack of success; the proceedings must be seriously and unfairly burdensome, prejudicial, damaging, or productive of serious and unjustified trouble and harassment.
In Markan v Bar Association of Queensland (No 3) [2014] QSC 225, the court reiterated that a “vexatious proceeding” can include abuse of process, harassment, proceedings instituted without reasonable ground, or conducted to harass, annoy, cause delay or detriment.
The decision also discussed the standard of “frequently,” finding that the number of actions and applications brought by the litigant fairly fell within the usual meaning of that word.
In Lohe v Mansukhani [2007] QSC 69, the Supreme Court noted that a vexatious proceedings order is not an absolute bar to instituting proceedings, as leave can be obtained for legitimate cases.
However, an application for leave that itself has the characteristics of further vexatious proceedings would fail.
The court stated that there is no grave injustice in requiring a person who has frequently engaged in litigation with those characteristics to establish, on any subsequent occasion, that the proposed litigation is not more of the same.
In Cooper v Mbuzi [2012] QSC 105, the court described the definition of “vexatious proceeding” as expansive, consistent with the Act’s objective to address vexatious litigants.
The court must consider if the person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings and then exercise discretion, taking into account the serious implications of interfering with access to the courts and other available powers to control proceedings.
In summary, a proceeding is considered vexatious under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) where it amounts to an abuse of process, is instituted without any reasonable ground, or includes scandalous allegations unsupported by material facts.
Courts have emphasised that the focus is not necessarily on the litigant’s purpose but on the pattern and frequency of conduct, such as repeated failures to advance tenable causes of action or the filing of irrelevant and burdensome material.
Vexatious litigation goes beyond mere lack of success and must be seriously and unfairly prejudicial, damaging, or harassing.
While an order restricting further proceedings is not an absolute bar to litigation, leave is only granted where a proposed claim is legitimate and not simply a continuation of previous vexatious behaviour, ensuring the balance between access to justice and the protection of the court system from misuse.
But what does frequently instituted or conducted proceedings mean?
Whether the person has “frequently” instituted or conducted such vexatious proceedings.
“Frequently” is considered a relative term in the context of litigation and may include both substantive actions and applications made within proceedings.
The Court must be satisfied of the above matters before it may make orders such as staying existing proceedings, prohibiting the institution of new proceedings, or making any other order it considers appropriate.
Only certain parties may apply for a vexatious proceedings order, including the Attorney-General, Crown solicitor, registrar of the Court, a person against whom vexatious proceedings have been instituted, or a person with sufficient interest (the latter two only with leave of the Court).
The Court cannot make a vexatious proceedings order without hearing the person or allowing them to be heard.
These threshold issues are further illustrated in the following case results:
In Markan v Bar Association of Queensland (No 3) [2014] QSC 225, the court explained that under s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), a “vexatious proceedings order” can be made if the court is satisfied that the person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia.
The court clarified that “frequently” is a relative term, to be considered in the context of litigation, and may include applications made within proceedings.
The number of actions and applications brought since 2011 was found to fall within the usual meaning of “frequently”.
In Mowen v Rockhampton Regional Council [2017] QSC 295, the court stated that for a vexatious proceedings order under s 6, two matters must be considered:
- that the person has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, and
- that they have been instituted or conducted frequently.
The court noted that “frequently” means something more than a lack of success; proceedings must be seriously and unfairly burdensome or productive of serious and unjustified trouble and harassment.
The court considered 15 proceedings (including both primary hearings and appeals) and found that this number, considering the context and the nature of the proceedings, was enough to establish that the respondent had “frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings.”
In National Australia Bank Ltd v Freeman [2006] QSC 86, the court held that “frequently” must be looked at in the context of litigation and is a relative term.
In this case, the respondent’s numerous proceedings in a short period were found to meet the threshold of “frequently instituted or conducted” vexatious proceedings. The court concluded that there had been proceedings “instituted and conducted in profusion within a relatively short period.”
The court found it was “impossible to resist the conclusion” that the vexatious proceedings had been frequently instituted, noting that the respondent had repeatedly attempted to re-litigate issues already determined.
However, the court does not set a specific number; instead, it focuses on the volume and repetitive nature of the proceedings.
In Cooper v Mbuzi [2012] QSC 105, the court cited the definition of “frequently” as a relative term to be considered in the context of the relevant litigation, referencing Jones v Cusack.
It was further observed that persistence in repeating mistaken applications or inappropriate means of proceeding may result in the litigation being characterised as vexatious.
The court emphasised that “frequently” is a relative term to be considered in the context of litigation and may include applications made within proceedings. Repeating mistaken or inappropriate applications may also contribute to a finding of frequent conduct.
In GRC Crown Law v Mathews [2017] QSC 64, the court referred to previous findings that the respondent had “frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings,” including orders made under similar federal provisions.
The court emphasised that the threshold is not displaced by factors such as disability or impairment, and that repeated or similar allegations in new proceedings may support the conclusion that the person frequently engages in vexatious litigation.
In Praljak v Bond University Ltd [2024] QSC 45, the court considered whether the defendant had shown that the plaintiff was a person who had frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, referencing the definition of “proceeding” as including any proceeding before a court or tribunal, whether interlocutory or substantive, and appeals.
The court examined a series of proceedings and concluded that the plaintiff had indeed frequently instituted such proceedings.
In summary, these decisions collectively demonstrate that Queensland courts interpret “frequently” in a flexible, context-dependent manner, considering both the number and nature of proceedings instituted or conducted by the person, as well as patterns of repeated or persistent litigation conduct.
The Court must be satisfied that a person has frequently instituted or conducted proceedings that fall within the statutory definition of “vexatious proceeding” before it can exercise its discretion to make orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld).
Who Can Apply for a Vexatious Proceedings Order?
Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), the following persons may apply to the Court for a vexatious proceedings order about a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, or who has acted in concert with such a person:
- The Attorney-General.
- The Crown Solicitor.
- The registrar of the Court.
- A person against whom another person has instituted or conducted a vexatious proceeding.
- A person who has a sufficient interest in the matter.
However, an application by a person against whom a vexatious proceeding has been instituted or conducted, or a person who has a sufficient interest in the matter, may only be made with the leave of the Court.
This is confirmed in the case of Praljak v Bond University Ltd [2024] QSC 45, which explains that usually, applications are brought by the Attorney-General, the Crown Solicitor, or the Registrar of the Supreme Court, especially where the public interest in the administration of justice is at stake.
Nevertheless, the legislation does contemplate that a private person (with the requisite leave) may bring an application. In such circumstances, orders are usually tailored to prevent damage to the particular applicant, rather than imposing a broader prohibition.
Similarly, in Mowen v Rockhampton Regional Council [2017] QSC 295, the court noted that the Council was entitled to apply for a vexatious proceedings order, but only with the leave of the Court as required under s 5(2) of the Act.
The decision also clarifies that leave does not need to be obtained before filing the substantive application; both can be heard together.
In Markan v Bar Association of Queensland (No 3) [2014] QSC 225, the orders referred to include the granting of leave under s 5 to the Bar Association of Queensland to apply for a vexatious proceedings order, demonstrating the process by which organisations or persons with a sufficient interest may seek such orders.
Defending Against a Vexatious Litigant
The overarching strategic responses recognised in these authorities include:
- Seeking orders to stay or strike out vexatious proceedings.
- Applying for costs orders where proceedings are shown to be vexatious or without reasonable cause.
- Requesting a vexatious proceedings order to prevent further litigation without leave.
- Monitoring for early warning signs such as repeated attempts to re-litigate settled issues, lack of tenable claims, and persistent procedural abuse.
- Ensuring that any orders made are proportionate and targeted to control the vexatious conduct without unduly restricting legitimate access to the courts.
These authorities guide both early identification of vexatious conduct and the procedural steps available to defend against such behaviour.
In Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd (No 2) [2021] QSC 51, the court discussed strategic responses to vexatious litigation. Specifically, the defendants successfully applied to strike out parts of a statement of claim where the plaintiff pleaded causes of action under s 1317AE Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
The court addressed costs orders, noting that costs may only be ordered against a claimant if the proceedings were instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or if the claimant’s unreasonable act or omission caused another party to incur costs.
In National Australia Bank Ltd v Freeman [2006] QSC 86, the court observed that when a party repeatedly attempts to re-litigate issues previously determined, this constitutes an abuse of process and is indicative of vexatious proceedings.
The court emphasised its inherent jurisdiction to restrain parties from commencing further proceedings aimed at re-litigating matters already decided.
This highlights the early warning sign of repeated attempts to reopen settled issues.
In Lohe v Mansukhani [2007] QSC 69, the court clarified that a vexatious proceedings order is not an absolute bar to litigation. A person subject to such an order must persuade the court that there is a legitimate cause of action before being granted leave to institute proceedings.
Applications for leave that bear the characteristics of further vexatious proceedings will fail. The requirement to establish a legitimate cause of action serves as a safeguard against further vexatious litigation.
Praljak v Bond University Ltd [2024] QSC 45 summarises the strategic responses available under the Vexatious Proceedings Act, including seeking leave to apply for a vexatious proceedings order and obtaining orders prohibiting the institution of proceedings against specified parties without leave.
The case also notes that orders should not be broader than necessary to control the vexatious behaviour, and the merits of the relief sought are considered as part of the leave application process.
Markan v Queensland Police Service [2015] QCA 22 refers to UCPR r 389A, which provides the court with the power to make orders (including of its motion) prohibiting a party from making further applications in an existing proceeding or starting similar proceedings without leave if applications are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. This is an early strategic step to contain vexatious litigants.
Crown Solicitor v Bird [2019] QSC 147 discusses the underlying purpose of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 as the protection of court processes, avoidance of unnecessary wastage of court resources, and shielding the community from repeated baseless proceedings.
Strategic responses include the requirement for leave to institute proceedings and the provision for matters to be permanently stayed if commenced without leave. The affidavit requirements for leave applications and the notice provisions also serve as procedural safeguards.
In Cooper v Mbuzi [2012] QSC 105, the court notes that persistence in repeating mistaken applications or inappropriate means of proceeding may result in litigation being characterised as vexatious.
Early warning signs include a litigant’s obsession with procedure over substance and repeated unsuccessful applications.
The court emphasises the importance of considering the profound implications of interfering with access to the courts when making orders.
Farmers Fruit Box & Plastics Pty Ltd v Select Carbon Pty Ltd
In Farmers Fruit Box & Plastics Pty Ltd & Anor v Select Carbon Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] QSC 241, Justice Bradley granted the defendants’ application to strike out the Queensland proceedings under rule 171(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).
The plaintiff had already commenced substantially similar litigation in New South Wales, which was struck out as defective—requiring a $30,000 costs order before repleading—and remained unresolved.
The Queensland action, seen as an attempted circumvention of that order, was deemed a prima facie abuse of process, with no reasonable justification for duplicating the proceedings in another jurisdiction.
Justice Bradley, invoking authority from Lewis v Minister for Police and Corrective Services [2022] QSC 70, reaffirmed that starting parallel proceedings is ordinarily vexatious and oppressive, and not tenable without proper justification.
Given that the NSW case was still active and no adequate explanation for a second suit was offered, the strike‑out was inevitable.
Striking Out of Vexatious Proceedings
Striking out vexatious proceedings in Queensland is addressed by both legislation and case law, providing courts and tribunals with clear powers and procedures to prevent the misuse of judicial processes.
Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), 171 Striking out pleadings, the court may, at any stage, strike out all or part of a pleading if it is considered frivolous, vexatious, discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, has a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial, is scandalous, or is otherwise an abuse of process.
The court may also order costs on the indemnity basis for such applications. When hearing an application under this rule, the court is not restricted to evidence about the pleading itself.
Applications for such orders must follow procedural requirements, including written notice and potential costs orders.
In summary, to strike out vexatious proceedings in Queensland:
- Apply under the relevant rule (typically r 171 or r 162 UCPR for civil proceedings.
- The application should detail the reasons the proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
- The court or tribunal may require submissions, consider supporting evidence, and decide whether to strike out all or part of the proceeding, possibly awarding costs.
- The powers are exercised with caution to protect access to justice and ensure that only clearly untenable claims are summarily dismissed.
The legislative provisions and case authorities above provide a robust framework for striking out vexatious proceedings, balancing the need to protect court resources and parties from abuse while safeguarding access to justice.
Key Takeaways – Vexatious Litigants & Vexatious Proceedings
The Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) is designed to protect the courts, their resources, and the community from repeated, baseless, or abusive litigation, while still allowing access to justice for legitimate claims through a leave process.
A proceeding is “vexatious” if it amounts to an abuse of process, is pursued without reasonable grounds, or contains scandalous or harassing allegations; it requires more than simply being unsuccessful.
The Court must be satisfied of two threshold issues before making an order:
- that the person has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings, and
- that they have done so “frequently.”
“Frequently” is a relative concept assessed in context and can include both substantive actions and interlocutory applications. It is established by patterns of repetitive or persistent litigation, rather than a strict numerical test.
Only certain parties may apply for a vexatious proceedings order, including the Attorney-General, Crown Solicitor, Registrar, or, with leave, a person directly affected or with sufficient interest.
Orders made under the Act may include staying existing proceedings, prohibiting new ones without leave, or tailoring restrictions to specific parties or subject matter.
Defending against vexatious litigants involves seeking strike-out or stay orders, applying for costs, monitoring early warning signs of vexatious conduct, and, where necessary, applying for a vexatious proceedings order.
The Act balances competing interests: it restrains persistent abuse of the court process while ensuring that persons subject to orders retain an avenue to pursue legitimate claims.
FAQ – Vexatious Litigants & Vexatious Proceedings
Understanding vexatious proceedings in Queensland can be complex, especially given the balance between protecting court resources and preserving access to justice.
Below are answers to common questions that clarify what vexatious litigation means, how the law applies, and what options exist for defendants and litigants under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld).
What does “vexatious” mean in plain language?
“Vexatious” means using the court system unfairly or abusively. It covers cases filed with no legal basis, repeated re-litigation of decided issues, or claims intended to harass, delay, or pressure others. A vexatious proceeding is more than simply losing; it is litigation that is seriously burdensome, unjustified, and an abuse of process.
Does losing a case make me vexatious?
No, simply losing a case does not make someone a vexatious litigant. Courts recognise that people can genuinely lose for many reasons, such as insufficient evidence or strong opposition. A proceeding becomes vexatious only where it is baseless, repetitive, abusive, or brought to harass, annoy, or cause unfair prejudice, rather than resolve a genuine dispute.
Can someone with a mental illness be declared vexatious?
Yes, a person with a mental illness can still be declared a vexatious litigant. Courts consider the pattern of conduct and repeated institution of baseless proceedings, not the individual’s circumstances. While impairments are acknowledged, they do not displace findings of vexatious litigation if a person frequently institutes or conducts abusive or meritless proceedings.
How can a defendant protect themselves from vexatious litigation?
A defendant can protect themselves by applying to strike out vexatious proceedings, seeking costs orders, or requesting a vexatious proceedings order under the Act. Monitoring for early warning signs, such as repeated attempts to re-litigate settled issues, is essential. Courts have strong powers to stop baseless claims and safeguard defendants from harassment.
Can a vexatious litigant ever bring a genuine case?
Yes, a vexatious litigant can still bring a genuine case if they first obtain leave from the Supreme Court under the Act. The leave process ensures that only legitimate claims with a reasonable basis proceed. This balance prevents misuse of the courts while preserving access to justice for claims with genuine merit.
What is the Vexatious Proceedings Act in Queensland?
The Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) is legislation that allows the Supreme Court to declare someone a vexatious litigant and restrict their ability to commence or continue legal proceedings. It protects courts, resources, and defendants from abusive litigation, while still allowing access to justice for legitimate claims through a strict leave application process.
How to prove someone is a vexatious litigant?
To prove someone is a vexatious litigant, evidence must show they have instituted or conducted proceedings that are abusive, baseless, or harassing, and that they have done so frequently. Courts examine patterns of repeated litigation, failures to disclose tenable claims, scandalous allegations, and attempts to re-litigate decided issues before making a vexatious proceedings order.
Can you declare someone a vexatious litigant?
An individual cannot declare someone vexatious themselves, but they may apply to the Supreme Court for a vexatious proceedings order under the Act. Only specific parties, such as the Attorney-General, Crown Solicitor, Registrar, or a directly affected person (with leave), can apply. The Court alone has the authority to make such a declaration.
What is an example of vexatious behaviour?
An example of vexatious behaviour is repeatedly filing new cases on issues already decided, or making scandalous, irrelevant allegations without evidence. Starting parallel proceedings in different courts, refusing to comply with orders, or launching baseless claims to harass opponents are all typical examples that Queensland courts recognise as vexatious conduct.
Who can apply for a vexatious proceedings order in Queensland?
In Queensland, the Attorney-General, Crown Solicitor, or Registrar can apply for a vexatious proceedings order. A person directly affected by vexatious litigation, or someone with sufficient interest, may also apply, but only with leave of the Court. This ensures applications are limited to those with proper standing and a genuine interest.
What orders can the Court make against vexatious litigants?
The Court can stay current proceedings, prohibit the institution of new proceedings without leave, or impose tailored restrictions to stop abusive litigation. These orders are designed to protect the courts, defendants, and the public from repeated harassment, while ensuring that legitimate claims can still proceed if leave is obtained.
Does the Court always refuse vexatious litigants?
No, the Court does not automatically refuse vexatious litigants. While restrictions are imposed, the Act provides safeguards to ensure they can still pursue genuine claims. Leave may be granted if the litigant demonstrates a tenable cause of action. This balance protects against abuse while preserving the fundamental right of court access.
What does “frequently” mean under the Act?
“Frequently” is a relative term assessed in the context of litigation. It refers to patterns of repeated or persistent proceedings, whether substantive cases or interlocutory applications. Courts look at volume, repetition, and similarity of claims rather than a strict number. It covers both new filings and repeated inappropriate applications in existing matters.
Is one baseless claim enough to be vexatious?
One baseless claim alone is not usually enough to declare someone a vexatious litigant. The Court looks for frequent institution or conduct of proceedings that meet the statutory definition. A single unsuccessful or defective case may be dismissed or struck out, but frequent repetition is required for a vexatious proceedings order.
What is the penalty for being declared a vexatious litigant?
The main penalty is a restriction on commencing or continuing legal proceedings without leave of the Supreme Court. Any proceeding filed without leave is permanently stayed. While not a criminal sanction, the order is a severe limitation on court access, aimed at preventing abuse of process while still allowing legitimate claims with permission.
Can businesses be declared vexatious litigants?
Yes, companies as well as individuals can be declared vexatious litigants if they repeatedly bring abusive or baseless proceedings. The Act applies to “persons,” which includes corporations. Queensland courts have emphasised that misuse of litigation by companies, such as repeated meritless claims, can be restrained through vexatious proceedings orders under the Act.
How does the Court decide if litigation is vexatious?
The Court assesses whether proceedings are abusive, instituted without reasonable grounds, or conducted to harass, annoy, or delay. It examines patterns of repeated or scandalous filings and considers whether the conduct is seriously burdensome or unjustified. The Court then decides, in its discretion, whether to make a vexatious proceedings order.
Can vexatious proceedings be struck out early?
Yes, vexatious proceedings can be struck out at an early stage. Under UCPR r 171, pleadings may be struck out if frivolous, vexatious, or disclosing no cause of action. QCAT also has powers to dismiss vexatious matters. These safeguards prevent wasted resources and protect defendants from prolonged, baseless litigation in Queensland.
Is a vexatious proceedings order permanent?
Not necessarily. A vexatious proceedings order can be set aside or varied if circumstances change or the litigant demonstrates that new proceedings are legitimate. The Act provides this safeguard to ensure fairness. However, until varied or removed, the order remains in force and restricts the person’s ability to commence litigation.
How does a vexatious litigant get leave to file a case?
To obtain leave, a vexatious litigant must show the proposed claim is legitimate, discloses a tenable cause of action, and is not simply more of the same abusive conduct. The Court reviews affidavits and submissions carefully. Applications that themselves appear vexatious or repeat old claims will not receive permission to proceed.
