Attorney-General in and for the State of New South Wales v Spautz [2001] NSWSC 66

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Attorney-General in and for the State of New South Wales v Spautz [2001] NSWSC 66 revised - 6/04/2001 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 14464/89 HEARING DATE(S) : 29/03/00 - 31/03/000;3 - 07/04/00;10/04/00;19/04/00;01/05/00;03/05/00;05/05/00;12/05/00;18/05/00 JUDGMENT DATE : 23 February 2001

PARTIES : Attorney-General in and for the State of New South Wales v Michael Edward Spautz JUDGMENT OF : O'Keefe J

Mr T Buddin SC (Crown Advocate), Mr J Ingram and Mr C Lonergan - for Attorney General Mr A M Colefax - for Mr Morrow Mr P R Whitford - for Mr Cummins QC COUNSEL : Mr D J Fagan SC and Mr R Horsley - for Mr Rofe QC Mr J Priestley - for Mr Cameron

For Attorney-General I V Knight Crown Solicitor Sydney

For Mr Morrow Ebsworth & Ebsworth Sydney

For Mr J D Cummins QC Corrs Chambers Westgarth SOLICITORS : Sydney

For Mr Rofe QC Colin Biggers & Paisley Sydney

For Mr W Cameron McCabes Sydney

Defendant in person CATCHWORDS : Vexatious litigant - Institution of proceedings - Leave of court - Re-argument of matters already dealt with - Abuse of process - No prima facie ground for proceedings - No jurisdiction of single judge to review decision of another single judge - Limitation of action - Immunity of counsel - Indemnity costs LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Act, 1970 s.84 Williams v Spautz (1991-1992) 174 CLR 509 Becker v Teale (1971) 1 WLR 1475 Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543 Keefe v Marks (1989) 16 NSWLR 713 at 719 CASES CITED : Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (1999) 74 ALJR 209 at paras 97, 112-114 and 361 Regina v Kaddour and Turkmani [2000] NSWSC 888, Supreme Court of New South Wales, unreported 14 April 2000 Degmam Pty Limited (in liq) v Wright No 2 (1983) 2 NSWLR 354 Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 at 542 Hobartville Stud Pty Limited v Union Insurance Co Limited (1991) 25 NSWLR 358 Northridge v Central Sydney Area Health Service [2000] NSWSC 1241, Supreme Court unreported 29 December 2000. DECISION : 1. The Notices of Motion filed by Dr Spautz are dismissed; 2. Dr Spautz is to pay the costs of all parties on an indemnity basis; 3. In the Attorney-General's Notice of Motion there will be no substantive order made. No order as to costs.