Citigold Corporation Ltd and Tait, Re [2004] QLRT 92

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re Citigold Corporation Ltd and W.P. Tait [2004] QLRT 92 PARTIES: Citigold Corporation Ltd (Applicant) and W.P. Tait (Respondent) FILE NO/S: AML119-121/04 PROCEEDING: Application to strike out objections DELIVERED ON: 17 September 2004 (Ex tempore) DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 17 September 2004 PRESIDING MEMBERS: Koppenol P ORDER: Objections struck out. (at [7]) CATCHWORDS: MINING – MINING LEASE APPLICATIONS – OBJECTION BY VEXATIOUS LITIGANT – WHETHER OBJECTION SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT Vexatious Litigants Act 1981, ss 2(1), 3, 8 COUNSEL: N/A SOLICITORS: Ms Z. Farmer, for the Applicants AGENT/S: No appearance by the Respondent [1] In these matters, the Applicant for the mining leases has applied to strike out the objections lodged by the Respondent William Peter Tait. [2] Various points were raised in Ms Farmer’s submissions. For present purposes the principal point is that the Respondent is a declared vexatious litigant under section 3 of the Vexatious Litigants Act 1981 who had not obtained leave under section 8 of the Act to lodge the objections concerned; accordingly those objections should be struck out. [3] I have before me a certificate of the Supreme Court’s acting registrar which certifies that on 4 December 2002, the Respondent was declared by Justice Wilson to be a vexatious litigant. The registrar of this tribunal has also advised that a Supreme -- 1 of 2 -- Court search has revealed that the Respondent has not obtained leave to lodge the objections concerned. [4] Section 8(1) and (1A) of the Act read as follows: “Proceedings by or with vexatious litigants require leave 8(1) Neither a person declared to be a vexatious litigant nor any person in concert with the person shall institute or take any legal proceedings without leave of the Supreme Court or a Judge thereof first had and obtained. (1A) Proceedings instituted or taken in contravention of subsection (1) shall be invalid and of no force or effect in law.” [5] Ms Farmer drew my attention to the section 2(1) definition of “legal proceedings”. It is in the following terms: “Meaning of terms 2(1) In this Act— “legal proceedings” means any cause, matter, action, suit, or proceeding of any kind within the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal and includes any proceeding taken in connection with any such legal proceedings pending before any court or tribunal.” [6] It was submitted that the lodgment of an objection in a pending mining lease application constitutes the taking of any proceeding [the lodgment of the objections] in connection with legal proceedings [the mining lease applications] pending before this tribunal. [7] In my view, Ms Farmer’s submission should be accepted. It follows that the Respondent’s objections should be struck out. [8] Ms Farmer also said that her client had 2 other pending mining lease applications where the Respondent had lodged objections. Although those applications had not yet been referred to the tribunal, Ms Farmer submitted that my comments would be of assistance to the mining registrar in dealing with those objections. All that I would say in that regard is that because section 8(1A) of the Act has the effect of rendering invalid and of no force or effect in law any purported mining lease objection lodged in contravention of section 8(1), the mining registrar would be entitled to reject or not accept any such objection. Naturally, for the mining registrar to do that, he or she would need to be satisfied that the objector (a) is and remains a declared vexatious litigant, and (b) has not obtained leave of the Supreme Court or a Judge thereof to lodge the objection. Order Respondent’s objections struck out. -- 2 of 2 --