Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 2654 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The Bill will remove the role of the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to determining the remuneration, allowances and entitlements of acting and additional judges and those resident judges appointed while another resident judge holds a commission of the Federal Court. The tribunal will have a role in respect of determining the additional remuneration and allowances to be paid and entitlements to be granted to the Chief Justice in addition to those received in his or her capacity as a resident judge or a Federal Court judge.

The Bill also provides that the remuneration and allowances of acting judges will be set by regulation. Given the nature of acting appointments, this approach will provide flexibility while, at the same time, will provide for the scrutiny by the Assembly of the remuneration and allowances prescribed. The Supreme Court Act does not address the issue of entitlements to be received by an acting judge. The Bill provides for an acting judge to receive the same entitlements, other than an entitlement to a pension or leave, as those received by a resident judge. Entitlements in respect of a pension and leave are not relevant, because acting judges are paid a daily sitting fee.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to turn now to the second matter dealt with by this Bill. The ACT and the Northern Territory are the only jurisdictions which do not have provisions to deal with persons who are vexatious litigants. In general terms, a vexatious litigant is one who institutes proceedings for an ulterior purpose or without reasonable grounds. This Bill will enable the Supreme Court, on application, to declare a person to be a vexatious litigant. Where a declaration has been made, that person will not be able to commence or continue proceedings without the leave of the Supreme Court. I understand that the experience of other jurisdictions suggests that courts are slow to make such a declaration. An application for a declaration may be made by the Attorney-General or, in relation to proceedings, by a person aggrieved by the institution of those proceedings.

There are three interesting features about this aspect of the Bill. The first is that a declaration will operate in respect of proceedings before a tribunal. This is sensible, given the trend of providing for tribunals to deal with matters which formerly would have been the subject of judicial proceedings. The second is that it allows a declaration to be made in respect of a particular type of matter. Thus, if there is a neighbourhood dispute, a declaration can be made in respect of that type of matter and that would not otherwise limit the ability of the person the subject of the declaration to commence proceedings in relation to other matters. Finally, if the court makes a declaration that a person is a vexatious litigant, the declaration will have the effect of preventing that person and, in addition, any other person acting in concert with the vexatious litigant from instituting or continuing proceedings without the leave of the court. This will assist in preventing the circumvention of a declaration. I commend the Bill to the house.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stanhope) adjourned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .