PLAINTIFF REPEATEDLY FILES INCOMPREHENSIBLE PLEADINGS

Wang v Botany View Hotel [2021] NSWSC 422 (26 April 2021)

This is an application to proceed where the plaintiff submits incomprehensible pleadings and already filed for relief in various courts. The plaintiff, in this case, is considered  a vexatious litigant.

Facts:

In Vaughan trading as Johnston Vaughan v Wan, McCallum J made orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, staying proceedings Mr Wang had brought against Mr Vaughan, his former solicitor and prohibiting him from instituting proceedings naming identified people as parties. In Wang v Botany View Hotel, Adamson J made further orders under the Act, varying the orders McCallum J had made, to prohibit Mr Wang from instituting proceedings in New South Wales, without leave of the Court.

Mr Wang thus requires the Court’s leave to institute any proceedings which he wishes to pursue in this State.

Such an application must comply with the requirements imposed by S.14 of the Act. They include filing an affidavit with the application that lists all occasions on which the applicant has applied for leave; lists all other proceedings the applicant has instituted in Australia, including proceedings instituted before the commencement of the section; and discloses all facts material to the application, whether supporting or adverse to the application, that is known to the applicant.

In March 2021, Mr Wang filed a summons naming Botany View Hotel as the defendant, identifying his claim to be “lodge this summons. The section in the document”.  On 6 April he filed an affidavit he had sworn, to which was attached another summons. Like the position discussed by McCallum J in many of the proceedings she had to consider, the documents Mr Wang filed were extremely difficult to understand.

Issue: Should the court grant the application?

Law:

• Section 15(1) of the Act requires the Court to dismiss an application for leave, if not satisfied that the required affidavit substantially complies with S.14, or if the proceedings are vexatious proceedings, or there is no prima facie ground for the proceedings.

Analysis:

The contents of the affidavit well establish that Mr Wang has not there attempted, either to list all other proceedings he has instituted in Australia, or to disclose all facts material to his application, whether supporting or adverse to the application, that is known to him, as S.14  requires. In those circumstances, his application must be refused.

Mr Wang’s proposed summons also establishes that there is no prima facie ground for the proceedings he seeks to pursue. They also appear to be vexatious.

What Ms Wang seeks to plead must be considered in light of his extensive history of litigation against the Botany View Hotel up to June 2017. That began with a worker’s compensation claim in relation to injuries which he sustained in August 2000, when he was employed at the Hotel. Since then he has repeatedly sought relief against the Hotel in the Workers Compensation Commission; before an arbitrator; in this Court; the Court of Appeal; the High Court, which twice refused him special leave; the Fair Work Division of the Federal Magistrates Court and in the Federal Court of Australia.

When Mr Wang’s proposed summons is considered in the face of this litigious history, it is impossible to conclude either that Mr Wang has prima facie grounds for the proceedings which he seeks leave to institute, or that they would not be vexatious.

Conclusion: For the reasons given, Mr Wang’s application is dismissed.

#CourtFormsAndProcesses