Application by Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson to institute proceedings under s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)

1. [1]

   On 8 October 2021, Campbell J made the following orders in Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited & Ors [2021] NSWSC 1259:

2. [2]

   The consequence of those orders is that Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson cannot commence proceedings in New South Wales against the Rural Bank Limited, and/or the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited, and/or Elders Rural Services Australia Limited, and/or Elders Limited without first obtaining the leave of the court under s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings 2008 (NSW). Section 14 of the Act is in these terms:

3. [3]

   Section 15 of the Act governs the circumstances in which the application can be dismissed and is in these terms:

4. [4]

   Section 6 of the Act provides that the meaning of “vexatious proceedings” includes:

5. [5]

   Orders under the Act were sought by the respondents before Campbell J because Mr Williamson has persistently sought to impugn or attack collaterally previous judgments of this Court in both the Common Law division and in the Equity division. He has a lengthy history of pursuing complaints against these parties that have already been determined by this Court. That history is set out in the judgment of Campbell J, and I do not propose to summarise it here. I note, however, that his Honour concluded his judgment by observing the following at [89]:

6. [6]

   On 31 May 2022, Mr Williamson electronically filed a summons seeking leave to file a notice of motion in proceedings number 2015/00226349 naming the four respondents as Elders Rural Services Australia Limited (the first respondent), Rural Bank Limited (the second respondent), Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (the third respondent), and Elders Limited (the fourth respondent).

7. [7]

   The matter was subsequently referred to me for the question of whether leave should be granted to Mr Williamson to file the motion to “re-commence” proceedings.

8. [8]

   Mr Williamson did not initially file any affidavit in support in compliance with s 14(3) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act. The Registrar contacted him to request such an affidavit and Mr Williamson subsequently swore an affidavit in purported compliance with s 14(3) of the Act on 20 June 2022. In his affidavit, Mr Williamson accepted that he has commenced numerous proceedings in this matter and also accepted that they were “largely misconceived”. He apologised for doing so. He explained that he had not understood that instead of commencing separate proceedings he should have just brought the 2015 proceedings back to court and joined the other parties to it.

9. [9]

   Mr Williamson then repeated the very same submissions he has made over the years in his previous litigation against the proposed respondents. He alleges that he was lied to about the Reevesdale property, that Elders obtained the sale price by fraud of both him and court, and that all parties have either assisted the fraud or covered it up. Significantly, Mr Williamson goes on to address factual matters that have already been determined in the previous litigation including how it is that he was deceived. He also repeats submissions concerning Mr Les Hannan (now deceased) that he has made in previous proceedings which have been finalised. He concludes his affidavit in the following terms:

10. [10]

    The application by Mr Williamson is misconceived.

11. [11]

    The most significant hurdle to Mr Williamson’s motion is that Johnson J has already dealt with proceedings number 2015/00226349 and they were finalised some years ago: Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1986. Those proceedings were heard before Johnson J on 27, 28, and 29 November 2017 and on 19 December 2018 his Honour gave judgment for Elders against Mr Williamson. Those proceedings cannot be “revived” under that specified file number 2015/00226349 in order to litigate the same issues with different defendants.

12. [12]

    Furthermore, all of the issues raised by Mr Williamson in his affidavit and notice of motion are the subject of the order made under the Vexatious Proceedings Act in any event.

13. [13]

    Although the motion purports to revive proceedings rather than commence new proceedings, I propose to treat the motion as an application for leave to commence new proceedings.

Order

1. [14]

   Accordingly, I make the following order:

   1. (1)

      Pursuant to s 15(1)(b) and (c) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) the application for leave to commence proceedings is dismissed.