Praljak v Bond University Ltd
[2024] QCA 145
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- Praljak v Bond University Ltd[2024] QCA 145
- Add to List
Praljak v Bond University Ltd[2024] QCA 145
Praljak v Bond University Ltd[2024] QCA 145
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Praljak v Bond University Limited [2024] QCA 145 |
PARTIES: | ADRIAN PRALJAK (appellant) v BOND UNIVERSITY LIMITED (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | Appeal No 4082 of 2024 SC No 5369 of 2021 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 45 (Sullivan J) |
DELIVERED ON: | 9 August 2024 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 7 August 2024 |
JUDGES: | Bowskill CJ and Flanagan JA and Wilson J |
ORDER: | The appeal is dismissed, with costs. |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – where the appellant commenced proceedings in the trial division of the Supreme Court and his statement of claim was struck out – where the appellant appealed that decision and his notice of appeal was struck out – where the appellant was required to obtain leave before filing an amended notice of appeal – where, after more than a year had passed without an application for leave being made, the respondent filed an application for the proceeding to be dismissed – where the applicant filed a document purporting to be an amended statement of claim, without having obtained leave to do so – where the primary judge struck out the amended statement of claim, dismissed the proceeding and granted the respondent leave to apply for a vexatious proceedings order against the appellant – where the appellant seeks to appeal those orders – where there is no basis to the purported grounds of appeal relied upon by the appellant – whether the appeal ought to be dismissed |
COUNSEL: | The appellant appeared on his own behalf S J Webster for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The appellant appeared on his own behalf MinterEllison for the respondent |
- [1]BOWSKILL CJ: In May 2021, Mr Praljak commenced a proceeding in the trial division of this Court against Bond University, claiming damages on many bases in an amount of $2 million. His statement of claim was struck out in June 2021, on the basis, among others, that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. A direction was made that he not re-plead without first obtaining the Court’s leave. Mr Praljak appealed against those orders. His notice of appeal was struck out as being fundamentally defective, and a direction was made that leave be obtained before filing any amended notice of appeal. More than a year passed, with no application for leave being made, which ultimately lead to the appeal being struck out in October 2022.[1] Nothing more was done in relation to the Supreme Court proceeding until, in October 2023, the University filed an application for it to be dismissed. In response, on 2 November 2023, Mr Praljak filed a document purporting to be an amended statement of claim (not having sought leave to do so). As amended, the claim was for $7.9 million, for a wider range of complaints. The University’s application was amended to one seeking that this document be struck out, that the whole proceeding be dismissed and for orders under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld). For detailed reasons published on 25 March 2024,[2] Sullivan J made orders that:
- (a)the statement of claim filed on 2 November 2023 is struck out;
- The reasons for making this order included that the document is substantially unintelligible, fails to disclose tenable causes of action, does not attempt to plead material facts in support of any tenable causes of action, is frivolous and vexatious, including because it includes allegations irrelevant to the defendant and makes scandalous assertions, and is an abuse of the process of the court.[3]
- (b)the proceeding is dismissed;
- The primary judge was satisfied it was appropriate to dismiss the proceeding on the basis that it constitutes an abuse of process, having regard to the following: that it is fundamental to bringing a claim in this Court that it be accompanied by a statement of claim that complies with the UCPR; there has never been such a document in this proceeding; following the previous order to strike out the statement of claim, Mr Praljak delayed in taking any further step for over two years, and only took a step after the defendant applied to dismiss the proceeding; no leave was sought before filing the purported amended document; that document was, in any event, also defective and has also been struck out; there is no realistic prospect that Mr Praljak will produce a statement of claim document articulating a tenable claim, a matter supported by Mr Praljak’s submission that he had done the best he could in producing the document filed on 2 November 2023; and simply because Mr Praljak is self-represented does not make him immune from the requirements of the UCPR (and in any event, the fact that Mr Praljak apparently has a law degree and was admitted to practice in the ACT at some time in the past, was noted).[4]
- (c)pursuant to s 5(2) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005, the University has leave to apply to the Court for a vexatious proceedings order in relation to Mr Praljak;
- The primary judge was satisfied Mr Praljak is a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia and, given that the University has been the subject of four of these vexatious proceedings, his Honour considered it appropriate to grant leave to bring the application.[5]
- (d)pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005, Mr Praljak is prohibited from instituting proceedings in a Queensland State Court or Queensland State Tribunal against the University or any current or former employee, officer or Council member of the University, without prior leave of the Court;
- In concluding that it was appropriate to make this order, the primary judge noted that the previous vexatious proceedings brought by Mr Praljak against the University have to be seen in the context of the historic and contemporaneous conduct of Mr Praljak. His Honour referred to the “large volume of emails and attachments continuously being sent by [Mr Praljak] to [the University] and persons linked to [the University]”, including emails which have threatened the institution of further proceedings. His Honour was satisfied there was a real risk that, in the absence of such an order, further proceedings will be instituted; a risk that would increase following dismissal of the present proceeding. His Honour also found that it was probable, having regard to what has happened in the past, that any future proceedings would be vexatious in nature. Finally, his Honour observed that the evidence supports “that there is a toll, both financially on the defendant, and personally on the defendant’s employees, officers and Council members in having to deal with vexatious proceedings and the threat of future vexatious proceedings against them”.[6]
- (e)to the extent necessary, Mr Praljak has leave to appeal these orders to the Court of Appeal.
- [2]With the benefit of that leave, Mr Praljak has commenced the present appeal against the orders made by Sullivan J.
- [3]The grounds on which Mr Praljak seeks to appeal those orders, as articulated in the notice of appeal, are as follows [the ground numbers have been added]:
- Ground 1 – that the primary judge “Errored in Law”, in an unidentified way – although the notice of appeal suggests that “Relevant, Legal Arguments, Laws, Legal Case Precedents, [and] Reasoning will be explained” in the outline of argument and oral submissions;
- Ground 2 – that the primary judge “Errored in Facts”, again, in an unidentified way, but on the basis this is to be explained in the outline of argument and oral submissions;
- Ground 3 – that the primary judge failed to provide Mr Praljak with a civil jury;
- Ground 4 – that the primary judge failed to grant an injunction and “other necessary court orders” to protect Mr Praljak;
- Ground 5 – that the primary judge failed to “Lawfully grant the Urgent and Necessary Court orders, to ‘Freeze’, ‘Seize’, and issue ‘Liens’, both: 1) the Respondents – Minter Ellison – Law Firm and 2) The Respondents Client – Bond University Limited – Assets, Properties, Bank Accounts, Shares, Stocks, Bonds, Other Investments, Other Assets, and that of any Additional ‘Other Parties’ which their Honours think ‘Fit’”;
- Ground 6 – that the primary judge failed to make orders for “equitable relief” in favour of Mr Praljak;
- Ground 7 – that both the primary judge and the Supreme Court of Queensland “it is alleged engaged in” serious offences and crimes of various kinds against Mr Praljak;
- Ground 8 – that the primary judge “unlawfully rigged” Mr Praljak’s case; and
- Ground 9 – that there was a serious “Conflict of Interest”, “Apprehension of Bias” and “Corruption”, because the primary judge was appointed as a Supreme Court judge by the Honourable Shannon Fentiman, who is said to have both personal and commercial business relationships with the University and its lawyers from Minter Ellison.
- [4]In support of his appeal, Mr Praljak filed a document called an “outline of arguments”, as well as an affidavit of himself (in two versions, but with identical content), which seems to repeat the contents of the outline of argument. The outline of argument is an incomprehensible document. Mr Praljak made brief oral submissions at the hearing of the appeal, largely repeating a number of the matters set out in his outline of argument, and emphasising that he had not been provided with a civil jury; that he was denied the opportunity to produce “hard evidence” which would prove the many allegations that he makes; that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and a breach of his human rights, because he has been denied the opportunity to present his case; that the outcome is not fair, because he is a self-represented litigant, who has asked for help and had given the statement of claim his “absolute best effort”.
- [5]There is no basis, let alone merit, to any of the purported “grounds” relied on by Mr Praljak.
- [6]As to grounds 1 and 2, Mr Praljak’s outline of argument provides no assistance in terms of identifying what errors of law or fact Mr Praljak contends were made by the primary judge. No such errors, in terms of the legal principles identified or factual basis on which they were applied, are identified by Mr Praljak, either in his notice of appeal or outline of argument.
- [7]As to ground 3, the application determined by the primary judge was not one a jury could determine.
- [8]Grounds 4, 5 and 6 do not identify any ground of appeal, in the sense of a ground to challenge the decision made by the primary judge.
- [9]Ground 7 contains scandalous assertions that both the primary judge and “The Supreme Court of Queensland” have engaged in various criminal offences. Mr Praljak also states that he has reported this to various people or organisations, including the Prime Minister and the Human Rights Commission. It is unnecessary to say more about this – the contentions are irrational and incomprehensible.
- [10]Grounds 8 and 9 may be addressed together, as they raise the same point – that the case was “unlawfully rigged”, because the primary judge had a conflict of interest, appeared to be biased, and was corrupt. Again, these are scandalous assertions, with no basis whatsoever. The contention that the primary judge had a conflict of interest, because he was appointed by Minister Fentiman, when she was the Attorney-General, having regard to an asserted relationship between Minister Fentiman and the University and its lawyers, is non-sensical (and, in itself, also scandalous, for the assertions made about that Minister). There was no application to the primary judge to recuse himself from hearing the application, and nor could there properly have been. There is no rational, objective basis on which to consider a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the primary judge might not bring an impartial mind to the determination of the application.[7] The transcript of the hearing of the application reveals the primary judge was patient and courteous to Mr Praljak throughout; with Mr Praljak in fact remarking, towards the end of the hearing, that the judge had been “absolutely wonderful” (AB 217). Baseless assertions of bias (let alone corruption) ought not be entertained as the refuge of a disappointed litigant.
- [11]The appeal is misconceived and unfounded, indeed vexatious, and ought to be dismissed, with costs.
- [12]FLANAGAN JA: I agree with the Chief Justice.
- [13]WILSON J: I agree with the reasons and orders of the Chief Justice.
Footnotes
[1]Praljak v Bond University Limited [2022] QCA 213.
[2]Praljak v Bond University Limited [2024] QSC 45.
[3]Praljak v Bond University Limited [2024] QSC 45 at [20]-[36].
[4]Praljak v Bond University Limited [2024] QSC 45 at [44]-[52].
[5]Praljak v Bond University Limited [2024] QSC 45 at [62]-[127] and [128].
[6]Praljak v Bond University Limited [2024] QSC 45 at [148]-[152].
[7]Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 at [6]; Charisteas v Charisteas (2021) 273 CLR 289 at [11].