Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Li Wang v State of NSW [2022] NSWSC 544 Hearing dates: 5 May 2022 Date of orders: 5 May 2022 Decision date: 05 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: (1) The plaintiff's Motion of 22 March 2022 is dismissed. (2) The plaintiff pay the first defendant's costs of the motion. (3) Should the plaintiff, Li Wang, seek to file any further application in this proceeding prior to 4 July 2022 hearing of the first defendant's motion, notice of which was filed 23 February 2022 and the plaintiff motions notices of which were filed on 11 and 28 February 2022 respectively, the plaintiff, Li Wang must at the same time file a document of no more than 5 pages showing cause why this Court should not in chambers summarily dismiss the application as vexatious and an abuse of process. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Motion to agitate issues underpinning proceedings listed for hearing on 4 July 2022 – abuse of process – significant number of repetitive applications seeking identical relief or substantially identical – motion dismissed – order made preventing further interlocutory proceedings before 4 July 2022 hearing determined. Cases Cited: Wang & Liu v New South Wales [2011] NSW 321 Wang v New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 340 Wang v New South Wales [2010] HCASL 273 Wang v New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 209 Wang v New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 609 Wang v New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 882 Wang v New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 386 Wang v New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 373 Wang v New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 661 Wang v New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 909 Wang v New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 1298 Wang v New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 1332 Wang v New South Wales (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1599 Wang v New South Wales [2020] NSWCA 21 Wang v New South Wales (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 64 Wang v New South Wales (No 3) [2020] NSWCA 148 Wang v New South Wales (No 4) [2020] NSWCA 171 Teoh v Hunter Hill Council (No 7) [2012] NSWCA 356 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Li Wang (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant) Representation: Li Wang N. Bentley (First defendant) File Number(s): 2022/2581 Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The Court, as presently constituted, dismissed the motion of the plaintiff, notice of which was filed on 22 March 2022. At the time the Court issued a brief remark and reserved short reasons. These are the reasons for the dismissal of the motion. 2. Unfortunately, it is necessary to recite some history of the proceedings before the Court both in their substantive intent and the procedural issues. The plaintiff, Ms Li Wang, alleges that the State of New South Wales is vicariously liable for actions of officers of NSW Police Force. In this regard, the State of New South Wales is appropriately and correctly named as the defendant in the proceedings in which the plaintiff sues on the basis of misconduct of police officers and/or negligence. 3. The plaintiff alleges that, in 2004, she was physically and verbally assaulted in her home by her landlord. At the time she complained to Police, in particular, Senior Constable Kennedy, and the complaints were ignored. The plaintiff claims that she was the subject of insults, deceptions, and "a series of abusive treatment" by the Police, including the forging of records by the Senior Constable. Nothing in this judgment purports to determine the truth or otherwise of any such claim. Nevertheless, as a consequence of the alleged treatment, the plaintiff claims that she has suffered a deterioration in her "medical condition". 4. Earlier proceedings were before the Court. The plaintiff first filed a Statement of Claim on 29 December 2008. That Statement of Claim was the subject of summary dismissal by Hulme J in July 2009. [1] The plaintiff sought leave to appeal this decision, which was granted by the Court of Appeal (Basten and Macfarlan JJA) in October 2009, [2] and the Court of Appeal set aside the dismissal; granted leave for the plaintiff to file a fresh Statement of Claim by October 2010; and, referred the plaintiff to the Pro Bono Panel. [3] For reasons which are unnecessary to understand or recite, the plaintiff sought special leave to appeal to the High Court, which special leave was denied. [4] 5. The plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim in December 2010 and, since then, various notices of motion. Some of the motions were dealt with by Schmidt J in two judgments. [5] The plaintiff appealed from those judgments, which appeal was dismissed. [6] 6. The plaintiff apparently filed a further Statement of Claim on 3 July 2012. This Statement of Claim was summarily dismissed by Garling J in April 2013. [7] The plaintiff filed a further Statement of Claim, filed on 26 April 2013, which named her husband, Mr Liu as a tutor. This Statement of Claim and the application regarding a tutor was subject to judgments of the Court from Hamill J in May 2014, [8] Harrison J in July 2014, [9] and the Court of Appeal (Emmett and Gleeson JJA) in October 2014. [10] The effect of the Court's various orders were that the tutor may only be represented by a solicitor or legal practitioner. 7. The plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim on 23 July 2019, which reproduced paragraphs from the 2014 Statement of Claim. Several motions filed by the plaintiff and defendant in those proceedings were the subject of judgment by Campbell J in September 2019, [11] and Adamson J in October 2019. [12] 8. The Court, in the judgment of Adamson J, found that the plaintiff's three motions seeking summary judgment and challenging the orders of the Registrar were an abuse of the Court process, and ordered that the plaintiff be prevented from filing further motions without leave of the Court. The proceedings against the second defendant were dismissed and the proceedings were stayed by Harrison AsJ in November 2019 until the plaintiff's tutor was represented by a solicitor. [13] 9. In 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended summons seeking leave to appeal, seeking to appeal against the decisions of Harrison J, Adamson J and Harrison AsJ. Her application for leave to appeal was dismissed. [14] 10. The plaintiff sought, by motion on notice filed 3 March 2020, to reverse the result of this application, which application was dismissed on the papers. [15] A further two notices of motion filed by the plaintiff were dismissed on the papers, and the Court made orders of a kind issued by the Court today and based upon orders in Teoh v Hunters Hill Council. [16] That order was with respect to matters dealt with by the two 2020 NSW Court of Appeal judgments. [17] A further motion of the plaintiff, filed by notice dated 28 July 2020, was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on the papers as an impermissible attempt to re-agitate matters previously determined. [18] 11. The Statement of Claim in the current proceedings, to which the motions now before the Court relate, was filed on 4 January 2022. The Statement of Claim seeks the relief of "assisted care; economic loss; treatment expenses; interest on damage; and, costs loss". Based on the pleadings, the plaintiff first initiated proceedings against the State of New South Wales in 2008 as vicariously liable for the actions of NSW police. The claim for vicarious liability is of course correct. The plaintiff particularised numerous "illegal" and "unjust" rulings and orders made by the Court and "illegal" filings by the defendant which ostensibly form the basis of the plaintiff's claim for relief. 12. The plaintiff claims that the Court should have made the initial determination in favour of the plaintiff in 2009, but that the proceedings were rendered futile by the first defendant's "illegal pleadings" which were accepted by the Court. 13. The plaintiff filed a notice of motion on 11 February 2022, seeking a summary judgment against the defendant (claiming the defendant did not file a notice of appearance within the 28 days provided in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (hereinafter the UCPR)), and an initial determination for the defendant's vicarious liability. 14. The defendant filed a motion on notice on 23 February 2022 seeking, inter alia, a summary dismissal of the proceedings and/or that the Statement of Claim be struck out on the basis of the proceedings are an abuse of process; and, a stay of proceedings until a tutor is appointed for the plaintiff, to be represented by solicitor. 15. On 28 February 2022, the plaintiff filed a further notice of motion seeking to strike out the appearance and motion of the defendant as they had been filed out of time. 16. On 10 March 2022 Registrar Jones made orders setting out a timetable for the filing of evidence and submissions in relation to the three motions filed. The claim is listed on 4 July 2022 for hearing, amongst other things, of the defendant's motion of 23 February 2022 and the earlier motions of the plaintiff. 17. The plaintiff relies upon three affidavits affirmed by herself on 8 February 2022, 26 February 2022 and 14 February 2022. They were read in this interlocutory application without objection. The plaintiff also filed submissions on 11 April and 2 May 2022. 18. The plaintiff's submission on the motion filed on 22 March 2022, with which the Court dealt today, is that it is "illegal" and "unfair" for Registrar Jones to make the orders that were made on 10 March, despite the defendant taking no "legal" or "valid" step in the proceedings. The plaintiff submits that the background of the proceedings and the evidence have "proved that someone has pretended to be the solicitor for the defendant and intentionally filed the illegal pleadings to pervert the course of justice". 19. Essentially, the plaintiff's submissions depend upon the irregularity of the filing of a notice of appearance; the irregularity of the defence filed or purportedly filed by the defendant; and, the consequential effect of those matters on the orders made by Registrar Jones. Further, the applicant claims that the person who signed documents on behalf of the first defendant was, for want of a better word, an impostor. 20. The defendant submits that the plaintiff's motion should be dismissed with costs and that the Court should make an order to similar effect as that made by the Court of Appeal in 2020, preventing applications being brought before the 4 July hearing. 21. The 4 July hearing, set by the Court to hear the defendant's motions, will deal with the issues of the regularity of the filing of the appearance by the defendant; the regularity of the filing of a defence by the defendant; the consequential orders of Registrar Jones; and, the regularity of the proceedings generally. 22. As a consequence, that which is sought to be agitated in the motion before the Court today, being the motion of the plaintiff filed 22 March 2022, is an abuse of the process and seeks to agitate, seemingly at a preliminary stage, the substantive issues that are listed for hearing on 4 July 2022. 23. As a consequence of those matters and accepting, as I do, the submission of the defendant on these issues, the Court made the orders issued in Court today and which, apart from also reserving these short reasons, were to the following effect: 1. The plaintiff's motion of 22 March 2022 is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff shall pay the first defendant's costs of the motion. 3. Should the plaintiff, Li Wang, seek to file any further application in this proceeding prior to 4 July 2022 hearing of the first defendant's motion, notice of which was filed 23 February 2022 and the plaintiff motions notices of which were filed on 11 and 28 February 2022 respectively, the plaintiff, Li Wang must at the same time file a document of no more than 5 pages showing cause why this Court should not in chambers summarily dismiss the application as vexatious and an abuse of process. ********** Endnotes 1. Wang v State of New South Wales (Supreme Court (NSW), Hulme J, 2 July 2009, unrep). 2. Wang v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 340. 3. Wang v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 209 (Basten and Macfarlan JJA and Handley AJA). 4. Wang v State of New South Wales [2010] HCASL 273. 5. Wang v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 609 and Wang v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWSC 882. 6. Wang & Liu v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 321 (Campbell JA and Handley AJA). 7. Wang v State of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 386. 8. Wang v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 661. 9. Wang v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 909. 10. Wang v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 373. 11. Wang v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 1298. 12. Wang v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWSC 1332. 13. Wang v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1599. 14. Wang v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCA 21 (Macfarlan and Payne JJA) 15. Wang v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2020] NSWCA 64 (Macfarlan and Payne JJA). 16. Teoh v Hunters Hill Council (No 7) [2012] NSWCA 356. 17. Wang v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2020] NSWCA 148 (Macfarlan and Payne JJA). 18. Wang v State of New South Wales (No 4) [2020] NSWCA 171 (Macfarlan and Payne JJA.) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 05 May 2022