Case: Yap v Australian Securities &amp; Investments Commission [2008] FCA 534
Outcome: referred to
is required pursuant to an order of French J (as he then was) in Yap v Australian Securities &amp; Investments Commission [2008] FCA 534. Mrs Yap in those proceedings sought the following relief: Cheshire Securities Pty Ltd ACN 009 264 082 be reinstated and ASIC to compensate the company for its wrongful deregistration on 20 June 2000. Curtin University of WA to reinstate the company's 50-years [sic] LEASE executed on 11 August 1988 between Curtin U (Lessor) Cheshire (Lessee) and CS Yap (Guarantor). Esanda F Ltd to reimburse the company all rents derived from its Student Housing "Don Watt House" from 17 November 1988 with interest compounded at Court rate till Judgment and to compensate its Guarantors (Arcola Pty Ltd and CS Yap) for wrongful seizure and sale of their properties. The Registrar of Titles to: a) revert Swan Loc 1978 in CT Vol 1794 Folio 145 back into the name of Yap Cheng See of 57 Whaleback Avenue Parkwood WA, b) revert Swan Loc 73 Lot 6 on Diagram 5694 CT Vol 1590 Folio 117 back into the name of Yap Cheng See of 57 Whaleback Av Parkwood. ANZ and Challenge Bank to reimburse Arcola Pty Ltd rents derived from 58 58A 58B and 60 Second Avenue Rossmoyne from 17 November 1988 with interest at Court rate till Judgment. Challenge Bank to reimburse CS Yap all rents derived from Lot 896/No 235 Preston Point Rd Bicton from 25.5.88 with interest at Ct rate till Judgment. a) Registrar of Titles to revert Lot 337 CT Vol 1773 Folio 274 and Lot 14 on Diagram 23627 CT Vol 1763 Folio 869 back into the name of Arcola Pty Ltd ACN 009 203 838 and b) revert Lot 896/No 235 Preston Point Rd Bicton back into the name of Yap Cheng See of 57 Whaleback Avenue Parkwood. On 31.10.93 CS Yap was declared a vexatious litigant pursuant to SC CIV 2722/02 by Granich &amp; Asso ought to be rescinded for same reason as in par 10 evidence in CSY79. Mrs Yap's application was there supported by an extensive affidavit sworn by her on 5 November 2007. French J described it as "long and turgid (covering) events dating back to 1987 and which appeared to make allegations of fraud and improper conduct against a variety of parties: Yap [2008] FCA 534 at [2] . His Honour noted in that case that four earlier attempts had been made by Mrs Yap to reinstate Cheshire in the Supreme Court of Western Australia as well as two other unsuccessful applications which were brought by Mrs Yap's son, Mr Chong, again in the Supreme Court of Western Australia at [6-7]. His Honour observed that if Cheshire had any valid claims against any of the respondents before him then they must have accrued prior to Cheshire being deregistered on 13 April 1992 and any cause of action was likely now to be statute barred at [10]. His Honour described Mrs Yap's claims in the affidavit material before him as "almost unintelligible". The remedies sought in the application before French J as his Honour observed at [12] substantially depended upon the reinstatement of Cheshire. His Honour was of the opinion that that application had no reasonable prospect of success and was on its face an abuse of process seeking, as it did, to relitigate issues that had been litigated over many years. His Honour further observed that "if there be, buried in the mound of material that Mrs Yap submits to this Court, some issue which has not been litigated it is not the task of the Court to unearth it". Mrs Yap's application was then dismissed by his Honour under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and alternatively on the basis that it was an abuse of process. His Honour, satisfied that Mrs Yap had habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings in this and the Supreme Court of Western Australia, directed under O 21, r (1)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Rules that in future Mrs Yap may not institute a proceeding in this Court without the leave of the Court. The history of Mrs Yap's disputes in various courts is set out in Granich v Yap [2004] FCA 1567 at [3] : P Vivante &amp; Co Pty Ltd obtained a default judgment against Mrs Yap in District Court action 1536 of 1989 on 10 April 1989. On 23 June 1992, District Court Registrar Kingsley set aside the default judgment and gave Mrs Yap leave to defend the proceedings provided she paid $39,000 into court by 7 July 1992. Mrs Yap failed to pay the money into court. Mrs Yap appealed the decision of District Court Registrar Kingsley to his Honour Judge Viol. The appeal was heard by his Honour on 3, 10 and 21 August 1992. His Honour dismissed the appeal with costs. Mrs Yap applied for leave to appeal the decision of his Honour Judge Viol to the Full Court of the Supreme Court. On 10 June 1993 the Full Court dismissed her application for leave to appeal and ordered that she pay the costs. Mrs Yap commenced proceedings against Granich &amp; Associates for alleged negligence in District Court action 6202 of 1993. Her action related to the firm's conduct of the District Court proceedings. Her action was dismissed by Commissioner Martin QC on 7 May 1996. He found she failed to prove the firm had been negligent. The solicitors, Granich &amp; Associates, were awarded the costs of the action. Mrs Yap instituted an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court. That appeal was dismissed on 21 July 1997 for want of prosecution. Mrs Yap was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. Granich &amp; Associates initiated proceedings in the Local Court to recover legal costs from Mrs Yap. She brought a counterclaim in those proceedings and sought to have it transferred to the Supreme Court. On 24 October 1997, Master Bredmeyer dismissed the action for removal as an abuse of process. Mrs Yap applied for special leave to appeal the judgment of the Full Court to the High Court. The special leave application was dismissed on 22 October 1998 with costs. On 14 December 2001, Mrs Yap applied for judgment in the District Court action which had been dismissed by Commissioner Martin QC on 7 May 1996. The application for a judgment was allegedly based on admissions. It was dismissed with costs by his Honour Judge Wisbey. On 15 March 2002, Mrs Yap applied to the District Court for a retrial of the 1993 action against her solicitors based on alleged fresh evidence. Commissioner Greaves dismissed the application with costs on 22 March 2002.