Writ of summons refused for filing by Acting Registrar of the Court pursuant to Order 67 Rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Proposed writ seeks relief against law firm and legal practitioner who acted for the plaintiffs some 16 years ago
Subsequent to refusal by Acting Registrar, the plaintiffs were prohibited by an order of the Federal Court of Australia from instituting proceedings in that court Practice and procedure
Quick Take
1A Federal Court restriction order under s 37AO(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that prohibits a person from instituting proceedings engages s 8(2)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), derivatively prohibiting institution of proceedings in WA courts without leave under s 6, but does not engage s 8(2)(a) to stay proceedings already commenced before the order was made.
2Where a registrar has refused to accept a writ for filing under O 67 r 5 RSC, no proceedings have been commenced; a subsequent application for leave to file the writ is an application to institute proceedings and is caught by the prohibition in s 8(2)(b) of the VPR Act, notwithstanding that the writ was first lodged before the restriction order was made.
3Section 102(7) of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) excluded from s 102 any corporation that was not an incorporated legal practice by reason of s 99(2), so that claims for fee recovery under s 102(5) and s 102(6) founded on the premise that a trust-structured practice fell outside s 99(2)(a) were self-defeating.
