Pascoe v Liprini [2012] NSWSC 345

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pascoe v Liprini [2012] NSWSC 345 Hearing dates: 24 March 2012 Decision date: 24 March 2012 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Duty List Before: White J Decision: Application dismissed Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - parties - abuse of process - conduct of parties - vexatious litigant - prohibited from instituting proceedings in New South Wales without leave of the court, s 8(7)(b) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 - application for stay of a writ for possession made ex parte on a Saturday - same application made and rejected previously - no material change of circumstance - no proper basis for application - no question of principle Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Scott Darren Pascoe (Plaintiff) Allan Stephen Liprini (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Defendant in person Solicitors: N/a File Number(s): 2011/201820

Judgment 1HIS HONOUR:This application is brought on Saturday afternoon by Dr Allan Liprini. He seeks a stay of what I am told is a writ of possession issued on 8 March 2012 by which he is required to give up possession of a property at Sylvania Waters. I am told that the writ has been obtained by Dr Liprini's trustee in bankruptcy. I was told that a sequestration order was made in the Federal Magistrates Court on 3 September 2010 and Mr Scott Pascoe was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy. 2Dr Liprini says that the writ should be stayed, as I understand it, on two, or perhaps three, grounds. First, he says that he has an application pending in the Federal Magistrates Court. It is due to be heard on Thursday, 29 March 2012. He is seeking an order that his bankruptcy be annulled. 3Secondly, he says that he was made bankrupt as the result of criminal behaviour on the part of his brother, the solicitors who acted for him in earlier litigation, and the trustee in bankruptcy. 4Thirdly, he says that if he is required to vacate the property, he will lose personal possessions including papers which are necessary for him to continue various pieces of litigation. 5He informed me that he had earlier made the same application for a stay of the writ of possession to Ball J. On 8 March 2012 Ball J, when sitting as duty judge, dismissed that application. Dr Liprini handed up a copy of his Honour's reasons from which I ascertained that an order was made by Adamson J on 5 December 2011 that Dr Liprini be prohibited from instituting proceedings in New South Wales without leave of the court. That order was made pursuant to s 8(7)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008. 6It appears from her Honour's reasons that on 1 April 2011 Dr Liprini sought a stay of the bankruptcy administration and an annulment of the sequestration order. That application was dismissed on 17 May 2011. 7It appears also from her Honour's reasons that on 16 September 2011 Dr Liprini filed a further application seeking a stay of the bankruptcy administration and certain preservation and other orders in relation to personal property he claimed he owned. That application was dismissed by Yates J in the Federal Court on 7 October 2011. 8Adamson J found that the latter proceedings were vexatious. 9There is no proper basis put forward as to why I should stay the writ of possession, even if the same application had not been made and rejected by Ball J on 8 March 2012. As it is, that application having been made and rejected, and there being no apparent material change of circumstances, the making of this fresh application is an abuse of process. The application also required leave, which was not sought. The fact that the application was made ex parte on a Saturday only adds to the abuse. 10I order that the application be dismissed. There are no costs to be paid. 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: 13 April 2012