NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Batterham v Nauer [2020] NSWCA 204 Hearing dates: 18 August 2020 Date of orders: 3 September 2020 Decision date: 03 September 2020 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1] Payne JA at [2] Simpson AJA at [7] Decision: 1. Leave to appeal is refused. 2. The applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – vexatious litigant – Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), s 8(7) –applicant sought leave to appeal against primary judge's order prohibiting him from instituting proceedings against respondent – proceedings commenced by companies controlled by applicant – requirements of Vexatious Proceedings Act – proceedings raised essentially issues that had been resolved in earlier proceedings – correspondence of applicant established proceedings commenced to harass or annoy or for another wrongful reason Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 75A, 101(2)(e), 101(2)(r) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), ss 6, 8 Cases Cited: Batterham v Nauer, in the matter of Peter James Batterham [2019] FCA 485 De Varda v Austin [2018] NSWCA 263 Finsec Pty Limited as Trustee of the Batterham Retirement Fund v Marcel Andre Nauer [No 2] [2020] NSWSC 238 Finsec Pty Ltd as Trustee of the Batterham Retirement Fund v Marcel Andre Nauer [2019] NSWSC 1831 Jones v Cusack [1992] HCA 40; (1992) 109 ALR 313 Mahmoud v Attorney General of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 12 Marcel Andre Nauer v Peter James Batterham [2020] NSWSC 240 Martin v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 189 Potier v Attorney-General in and for the State of New South Wales (2015) 89 NSWLR 284; [2015] NSWCA 129 The Age Company Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26 Viavattene v Attorney General (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 44 Vito Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited; Nina Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2018] NSWCA 317 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Peter James Batterham (Applicant) Marcel Andre Nauer (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant self-represented J R Clarke SC (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate