NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Attorney General v Collier [2022] NSWSC 323 Hearing dates: 21 March 2022 Date of orders: 24 March 2022 Decision date: 24 March 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Hamill J Decision: (1) Leave to issue a subpoena is refused. (2) Costs reserved to the trial Judge. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – leave to issue a subpoena – subpoena to compel attendance of plaintiff – substantive proceedings for orders under Vexatious Proceedings Act – where plaintiff is the Attorney General – allegation of "willy-nilly" use of the Attorney's name to harass and intimidate – where "somebody doesn't know what they're doing" –whether legitimate purpose for issue of subpoena – whether party can compel another party to attend by use of subpoena – tendentious flourishes Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rule 7.3 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), ss 8(4)(a), 8(6), 8(7), 16(1), 16(5). Cases Cited: Attorney General for NSW v Collier [2021] NSWSC 1483 Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services (No 1) [2017] NSWSC 183 NHB Enterprises v Corry (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 526 Attorney General for NSW v Collier [2021] NSWSC 1483 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Attorney General (Plaintiff) Marion Collier (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D Birch (Plaintiff)
M Collier (self-represented) (Defendant) File Number(s): 2019/00183521 Publication restriction: Nil.
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