Quach v New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission; Quach v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal

[2017] NSWCA 267

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Vexatious litigants and proceedings
3. › Vexatious proceedings order
4. › Whether person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia
5. › Where applicant has on several occasions taken steps in proceedings found to be vexatious and an abuse of process
6. › Where applicant has on other occasions taken steps in proceedings without reasonable cause
7. › Whether terms of order should preserve right to seek extension of time for statutory appeal
8. › Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 6, 8
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Recusal
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Whether fair-minded lay observer might consider judge might not bring impartial mind to resolution of question
5. › Where judge participated in earlier decisions adverse to applicant
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Appointment of acting judges
3. › Validity of appointment
4. › Whether acting Judge of Appeal holds judicial office
5. › Constitution Act 1902 (NSW), ss 52, 55
6. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 36, 37, 39

Quick Take

A vexatious proceedings order under s 8(7)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) need not preserve an exception for statutory appeal rights that the person has deliberately and consistently declined to exercise, given that s 14 provides a mechanism for the person to seek leave to institute proceedings notwithstanding the order. Interlocutory applications, including notices of motion, can constitute 'vexatious proceedings' for the purposes of the frequency threshold in s 8(1)(a). The validity of the appointment of an acting Judge of Appeal under s 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) cannot be challenged by a litigant, by virtue of s 36(4) read with s 37(6).