M v Monash IVF Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1429

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: M v Monash IVF Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1429 Hearing dates: 17 October 2019 Date of orders: 17 October 2019 Decision date: 17 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Equity - Expedition List Before: Sackar J Decision: See para [16] Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Parties - Vexatious Litigants – Declaration of Legislation Cited: Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) Cases Cited: Attorney General v Wilson [2010] NSWSC 1008 Attorney General v Crocker [2010] NSWSC 942 M v Monash IVF Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 928 Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No 2) [2009] FCA 398 Singh v The Owners Strata Plan 11723 & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1595 Sitberg v Maples [2010] NSWSC 1344 Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: Kathryn Seidler (M) (Plaintiff) Monash IVF Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Monash IVF Group (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: No representation (Plaintiff) C O'Neill (First and Second Defendants)

Solicitors: Self represented (Plaintiff) Colin Biggers & Paisley Pty Ltd (Defendants) File Number(s): 2018/230259

Judgment

Background 1. By Notice of Motion filed 14 September 2018, the defendants (Monash IVF Pty Ltd and Monash IVF Group) seek an order that pursuant to s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) the plaintiff (Ms Seidler) be prohibited from instituting proceedings in NSW against either of the defendants or their employees, directors, officers or legal representatives. The defendants also sought their costs of the proceedings including the motion to date. 2. This motion follows the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on 16 July 2019 in my decision of M v Monash IVF Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 928. In that matter the plaintiff brought claims against the defendants by way of an extensive statement of claim running some 2000 paragraphs. I ultimately found that there was no discernible cause of action apparent (at [20]) and it was difficult to understand what the plaintiff's claim was (at [19] and [20]). I further noted the breadth and voluminous nature of the pleading and the large amount of supporting evidence filed, did not serve to assist me in understanding her claim (at [20]). It was further clear to me that many of the allegations which the plaintiff sought to make before me, had in part or in whole already been addressed by Rein J in 2014 (at [18]). 3. Counsel for the defendants also referred me to the following matters in which the plaintiff had been party: 1. One judgement in Federal Magistrates Court; 2. Seven judgements in Federal Court (including a judgement declaring the plaintiff a vexatious litigant); 3. Two judgements in proceedings unrelated to these proceedings in NSW Supreme Court; 4. One judgement in NSWCA; 5. One refusal of special leave in the High Court; 6. Five judgements the subject of proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court; 7. A further judgement in the Federal Court; and 8. In proceedings related to these proceedings, four separate judgements in the NSW Supreme Court. 1. The plaintiff was not successful on any occasion. 2. This motion was listed for hearing before me on 17 October 2019. I was assisted with written submissions from counsel for the defendants, who submitted that the plaintiff should be declared vexatious in circumstances where she has filed a significant and numerous number of irrelevant documents, has been in constant and incessant communication with the Court and the parties, and has attempted to re-agitate proceedings that have already been ventilated in the court. At hearing Ms Seidler made lengthy oral submissions to the effect that she opposed the motion. Her submissions were lengthy and were, at times quite difficult to comprehend. 3. On 17 October, I briefly indicated to the parties that I would make the orders as sought and provide more detailed written reasons shortly.