The Applicant was subject to Court access restrictions as a result of “unmanageable, persistent and repeated abuse” of the Court’s processes. The Applicant sought leave to file an Application that, amongst other things, sought to quash an Order granted in an Application filed by the Respondent.

The Applicant, relying on Rule 9.15, also argued that the Application filed by the Respondent should be reopened because allegedly false information was submitted by the Respondent. The Court found that the legal defects alleged by the Applicant were not a basis for a Rule 9.15 Application, as the Rule only addresses scenarios where a Court process was conducted without notice or where a party was unable to attend. In dismissing the Application, the Court cautioned the Applicant that should he continue to abuse the Court’s processes to obtain leave to file and continue litigation, the Applicant may be subject to Rule 10.49(1) penalties.