Velissaris v Dynami Pty Ltd & Anor

[2013] VSCA 299

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Personal Property
2. › Ownership
3. › Plant and equipment
4. › Proof of ownership
5. › Whether appellant established ownership of chattels sold by liquidator
6. › Failure to prove ownership
1. Courts
2. › Inherent jurisdiction
3. › Abuse of process
4. › Vexatious litigation
5. › Power to restrain institution of further proceedings
6. › Whether inherent jurisdiction extends to restraining new proceedings that are in substance re-litigation of matters already decided
7. › Scope of restraining order
8. › Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis (1974) 131 CLR 311 considered
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Self-represented litigant
4. › Whether trial judge denied procedural fairness by confining cross-examination and requiring expedition
1. Appeal
2. › Fresh evidence on appeal
3. › Whether personal income taxation return should be admitted
4. › Whether document proved to be genuine

Quick Take

The inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria extends to restraining the institution of new proceedings where those proceedings are in substance an attempt to re-litigate matters already determined, following the approach in [name withheld] v [name withheld] and von [name withheld] v Permanent Trustee. Such orders must be confined to the subject matter of the judgment the party is seeking to re-litigate and cannot extend to unrelated proceedings. The proper basis for such orders is the inherent jurisdiction, not court rules concerning the Prothonotary's power to refuse documents.