Markan V. Bar Association Of Queensland (No3)

Markan v Bar Association of Queensland Case Note

Citation
Markan v Bar Association of Queensland (No3) [2014] QSC 225

Procedural History
Markan's ('P') appeal was refused second time in a row and brought proceeding against the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Queensland Police Service and Bar Association Queensland ('D'). He also brought an appeal in the Court of Appeal but it was dismissed.

Facts

P was convicted by grievous bodily harm of his colleague and sentenced four years imprisonment with parole date fixed after two years. He hired two solicitors who are engaged with Mr Tim Carmody SC (present Chef Justice)and Mr Paul Smith (Honour)of counsel but both appeal were dismissed by the High Court.

He sued BAQ for breaching

by failing to find in his favour and requests $10,000,00013 which are calculated of compensatory, consequential, aggregated, exemplary, parasitic and restitution damages. However, his appeal was dismissed.

Legal Issues

There are two legal consideration by the court:

1.

Whether the P has instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings (Is P a person that defined in the dictionary of the Vexatious Proceeding Act 2005?).

2. What is the threshold of vexatious proceedings (Frequency: P is a person frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia? ).

Arguments

P claimed with six ground of appeal against the BAQ:

1. The trial judge was selected without any consideration of the case.

2. Failure to recall the complainant for a medical whiteness could examine him.

3. The police officer ignored asking of an investigation of the discrepancy between the complaint's claim and the result of the medical exam. Moreover, the police wrongly concluded. the event and not allow appeal this acting in self-defence.

4. There were errors occurred by the trial judges in the course of summing up.

5. Using Irrelevant reference by the complainant during trial (using previous conviction of cyber-crime).

6. The evidence submitted by the complaint was fabricated evidence.

D argued that:

The proceedings made by Markan was not a reasonable claim which was previously dismissed by the trial judges. He is a person and his behaviours was defined under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld), if he does not stop, BAQ strikes out against his

action.

Reasons for judgement
He has learnt nothing from previous court decision and judgement he kept doing same action which are constituted vexatious.
By para [63] :
The absence of any legal basis for his actions, combined with his perseverance in the face of these adverse judgments, compels the conclusion that his proceedings are vexatious within the meaning of that term in the VPA .

Decision

The appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders 1. BAQ have leave under s5 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (QLD) to apply to the Court for a vexatious proceedings order under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 (Qld) against P.

2. The court states that Peter Markan is a person who has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in Australia.

3. Pursuant to s6 (2)(a) of the Vexatious proceedings act 2005 (Qld), this proceeding BS2980/14 is stayed.

4. Peter Markan is prohibited from instituting proceedings in any Queensland Court part from an appeal from these orders.

5. The application is dismissed on 26 May 2014.

6. Peter Markan has to pay the defendant's costs assessed on the indemnity basis.

Other Comments

The plaintiff, Markan, cross-applies. He has brought proceedings against the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Queensland Police Service and the Court of Appeal.