The case illustrates the application of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) to a self-represented litigant whose proceedings arose from diverse circumstances, confirming that a general prohibition order is appropriate where the litigant's vexatious conduct is not confined to a single dispute. The court confirmed that the 'frequently' requirement is a relative term assessed in context, and that some litigation success does not preclude a vexatious proceedings order where the overall pattern of conduct is vexatious.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.