Attorney-General v McDonald

[2026] SASC 19

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Vexatious litigants
3. › Application for permission to institute proceedings
4. › Whether proposed proceedings raise same subject matter as prior vexatious proceedings
5. › Whether leave should be granted
6. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), s 39(1)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Vexatious litigants
3. › Validity of prior judgments
4. › Whether prior judgments void ab initio for jurisdictional error
5. › Distinction between void ab initio and valid until set aside

Quick Take

A vexatious litigant cannot circumvent a vexatious litigant order by naming a different but related legal entity as respondent where the proposed proceedings raise the same subject matter as the prior vexatious proceedings.

Case Details

Citation[2026] SASC 19

CourtSASC

JurisdictionSouth Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.

Cited by1

2009R v TalbotTASSC 107

Relies on8

2009State of South Australia v McDonaldSASC 219
2008McDonald v State of South AustraliaSASC 134
2002Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v BhardwajHCA 11
2000Re MacksHCA 62
and 4 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in