Ki Bun Kwon v Sylvia Luke

[2011] NSWCA 116

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title:	Ki Bun Kwon v Sylvia Luke
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2011] NSWCA 116
Hearing Date(s):	3 May 2011
Decision Date:	03 May 2011
Jurisdiction:
Before:	Hodgson JA at [1], [9]; Sackville AJA at [8]
Decision:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - Application for leave to appeal - No draft notice of appeal or other document identifying error - Leave to appeal refused.
Legislation Cited:	Vexatious Proceedings Act s 14
Cases Cited:
Texts Cited:
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Ki Bun KWON  (applicant) Sylvia CHUNG/LUKE  (first respondent) Frank LUKE  (second respondent)
Representation
- Counsel:	Ki Bun Kwon  (In Person) (applicant) S Kim  (respondents)
- Solicitors:	Self-represented (applicant) Kim & Associates  (respondents)
File number(s):	2010/289332
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:	Supreme Court
- Before:	McCallum J
- Date of Decision:	14 February 2011
- Citation:	Luke v Kwon [2011] NSWSC 36
- Court File Number(s)	2010/289332
Publication Restriction:

Judgment

1. HODGSON JA: The Court is dealing with an application for leave to appeal from a decision of McCallum J given on 14 February 2011. By that decision, McCallum J made an order staying certain proceedings, an order that "Subject to s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act the defendant be prohibited from commencing any proceedings in the state of New South Wales against either of the plaintiffs", and also an order that the defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings.

1. There is before the Court a summons seeking leave to appeal and an affidavit in support. There is not, however, a draft notice of appeal or other document identifying any grounds of appeal.

1. The Court has heard oral submissions by the applicant, some of which were difficult to follow, but the Court has read all the written material provided by the applicant. None of this material, in my view, suggests any ground identifying error by the primary judge. For that reason alone, it seems to me, the application to leave to appeal must be dismissed.

1. I would add, however, that a further reason for taking this course is that the orders of the primary judge do not wholly prevent the commencement of proceedings by the applicant against the respondents. The applicant can approach the Court for leave to commence further proceedings, and may be able to make out a case for that leave.

1. However, I would say that the applicant has previously attempted to commence proceedings which have been held to be vexatious, on grounds including the ground that proceedings have to be put into a form that is intelligible to the Court and that this has not been the case in relation to previous proceedings commenced by the applicant.

1. If the applicant does wish to seek leave to commence further proceedings, it will clearly be necessary for her, if she is to obtain leave to commence those proceedings, to put them in a form that is intelligible; and for that purpose, it is clear that she will need legal assistance.

1. In any event, for the reasons I have given, in my opinion the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.

1. SACKVILLE AJA: I agree with the orders that have been proposed by the presiding judge and with his Honour's reasons.

1. HODGSON JA: The order of the Court is: application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

oOo