GEOFFREY MARK BARKLA [2024] SASC 115

Applicant: GEOFFREY MARK BARKLA Respondent: SUSAN ELIZABETH CLOSE Hearing Date/s: N/A File No/s: N/A B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Civil) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment 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 in which it was generated. BARKLA v CLOSE [2024] SASC 115 Judgment of the Honourable Justice S Doyle 17 September 2024 PROCEDURE - STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY - VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS, PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED MATTERS - OTHER MATTERS On 11 September 2024, the applicant sought to file an originating application, accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the applicant on 9 September 2024. Registry sought a direction from a Judge of this Court as to acceptance and filing of the application. On 14 May 2021, in proceedings between the applicant and a Mr Georganas, Livesey J made an order restraining the applicant from instituting new proceedings in relation to the same issue without leave of a Judge of this Court. Livesey J also ordered that the applicant correspond with the Registrar of this Court before attempting to commence such proceedings. The originating application filed on 11 September 2024 does not set out any basis for this Court to grant leave. I decline to grant leave for the applicant to file his proposed originating application and direct the Registrar to refuse to accept the application or supporting affidavit for filing. Georganas v Barkla [2021] SASC 47, considered. -- 1 of 4 -- -- 2 of 4 -- BARKLA v CLOSE [2024] SASC 115 Civil 1 S DOYLE J: On 11 September 2024, the applicant sought to file an originating application. Registry sought a direction from a Judge of this Court as to acceptance and filing of the application, and the matter was referred for my consideration and direction. 2 The relevant background is that on 14 May 2021, in proceedings between the applicant and a Mr Georganas, Livesey J made orders which included an injunction restraining the applicant ‘from instituting new proceedings or applications against [Mr Georganas] or any other entity or person in a court or tribunal of this State challenging or concerning the Form 3B issue, whether directly or indirectly, unless he first obtains the leave of a Judge of this Court’. His Honour further ordered that should the applicant wish to commence proceedings or make an application challenging or concerning the Form 3B issue, whether directly or indirectly, he must first correspond with the Registrar of this Court, who will then determine whether and how to deal with the matter. 3 A more detailed account of the background is set out in the reasons of Livesey J for making these orders.1 These reasons include an explanation of what is meant by the Form 3B issue.2 4 The applicant subsequently brought proceedings against the respondent in the Magistrates Court. On 9 September 2024, a Magistrate made an order staying those proceedings. Her Honour did so after referring to the orders made by Livesey J on 14 May 2021, and stating that the proceedings were stayed unless and until the applicant obtained the leave of the Supreme Court to bring those proceedings. 5 The application sought to be filed in this Court is also accompanied by an affidavit of Mr Barka dated 9 September 2024. 6 Whilst naming Ms Close as the respondent, and describing itself as applying to this Court to obtain leave in relation to the Form 3B issue, neither the application nor the affidavit set out any basis for this Court to grant leave. Indeed, to the extent it is possible to make sense of the documents at all, they seem directed more to a challenge to the orders made by Livesey J (in another action, and over three years ago). Needless to say, this is not an appropriate vehicle for seeking to challenge those orders. 1 Georganas v Barkla [2021] SASC 47. 2 Georganas v Barkla [2021] SASC 47 at [6]. -- 3 of 4 -- [2024] SASC 115 S Doyle J 2 7 There being no basis to grant the leave sought, I decline to grant leave for the applicant to file his proposed originating application. And I direct the Registrar to refuse to accept the application (or supporting affidavit) for filing. -- 4 of 4 --