New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Grant v Rouvinetis [2001] NSWSC 677 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11828/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 08/08/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 8 August 2001 PARTIES : Beverley Grant (Pl) Evangelos Rouvinetis (Def) JUDGMENT OF : Kirby J COUNSEL : S C Churches (Pl) No Appearance (Def) SOLICITORS : Alex Lee (Pl) Unrepresented (Def) CATCHWORDS : Vexatious litigant CASES CITED : Attorney General v Wentworth (1998) 14 NSWLR 481 DECISION : Ref para 13 Extempore - Revised THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION KIRBY J Wednesday 8 August 2001 11828/01 - Beverley GRANT v Evangel ROUVINETIS JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Beverley Grant applies to this Court to have Mr Evangel Rouvinetis declared a vexatious litigant. Miss Grant lives in Housing Commission premises at Boronia Street, Kensington. Mr Rouvinetis occupies a flat within the same building, one gathers on the floor above Miss Grant. 2 At some point Miss Grant complained to Mr Rouvinetis about his music which was being played loudly at 2.00 am. He reacted with abuse and, according to her evidence, thereafter continued with abuse on each encounter that they had. 3 Ultimately, on the advice of the police, on 29 October 1999 Miss Grant applied to the Local Court for an Apprehended Violence Order. The matter was heard by the Waverley Local Court on 3 April 2000. The Magistrate declined to make that order upon the basis that she was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Miss Grant had reasonable grounds to fear harassment. 4 On 24 September 2000 Mr Rouvinetis issued a summons in this Court naming Miss Grant as defendant. He was thereafter directed to file a Statement of Claim. This was done on 1 March 2001. Objection was taken to the Statement of Claim which conspicuously failed to conform to the rules. 5 The matter came before Master Harrison on 3 April 2001 and the Statement of Claim was struck out. 6 On 5 April 2001 Mr Rouvinetis responded with a further Statement of Claim. The Statement of Claim has been described by counsel for Miss Grant as more florid than its predecessor. That hardly does justice to the extravagance of the language and the nature of the annexures to that document. One can discern something of the relationship between Mr Rouvinetis and Miss Grant from the various allegations which are made. One could also understand something of the fear that Miss Grant claimed that she felt. 7 Objection was again taken to this document. The objection came before Master Malpass on 24 April 2001. The Statement of Claim was again struck out. Mr Rouvinetis lodged an appeal. The appeal came before O'Keefe J on 5 June 2001. O'Keefe J gave judgment on 21 June 2001, rejecting the appeal. 8 The present application has come before the Court on a number of occasions. It came before Studdert J on 23 July 2001, when his Honour ordered that Mr Rouvinetis should be given notice of the application and an affidavit of service should be filed in respect of that notice. The matter was adjourned until 6 August before the Duty Judge. That notice was given; an affidavit of service was filed. 9 The matter came before me on 6 August and was adjourned until today. I, likewise, gave a direction that Mr Rouvinetis should be given notice of the adjournment of the proceedings to today. Affidavits have been filed by the solicitor for Miss Grant and by a legal secretary, Miss Skye Watson, to satisfy me that Mr Rouvinetis has been told about today's proceedings. He has not, however, chosen to appear. 10 In these circumstances the plaintiff has applied to this Court under s80(2) for an order that Mr Rouvinetis not institute proceedings against her without the leave of the Court. In order to obtain such an order Miss Grant must satisfy the requirements of s84(2). She must demonstrate that Mr Rouvinetis is a vexatious litigant in that he habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground institute vexatious legal proceedings against her, she being the person aggrieved. 11 Some guidance as to the meaning of the term "vexatious proceedings" is afforded by the notes which accompany s84 in Ritchie vol 1 p 1151 where it is stated that: "Proceedings may be regarded as 'vexatious' if they have been instituted to annoy or embarrass the person sued or if they have been brought for a collateral purpose, that is not a purpose not for the purpose of having the Court determine the issues to which they give rise, or where the proceedings are so obviously untenable or manifestly groundless as to be utterly hopeless, whatever may be the motive of the person who brings them." (See Attorney General v Wentworth (1998) 14 NSWLR 481 at 491). 12 Here Mr Rouvinetis is a litigant in person. Whilst he cannot be expected to know the intricacies of pleading and may be forgiven difficulties in formulating a claim, the documents which have been issued by him and ultimately struck out by each of the Masters, betray not simply ignorance of the rules, but rather an ulterior motive towards Miss Grant. I believe that the appropriate inference from the nature of the allegations and the nature of the pleadings, and from the general history, is that the proceedings were commenced to annoy and embarrass Miss Grant and were manifestly groundless. 13 In these circumstances I believe it is appropriate to make the order which is sought. The orders of the Court will, therefore, be: 1. That the defendant not institute proceedings against the plaintiff without the leave of the Court. 2. The defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs. ******* Last Modified: 08/17/2001 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.