Bayne v Blake (No 3) [1909] HCA 60 — BarristerAI

Bayne v Blake (No 3)

(1909) 9 CLR 366; [1909] HCA 60

High Court of Australia30 September 1909

Ratio Decidendi

In determining whether an action is frivolous and vexatious and should be dismissed, the Court must have regard to all the circumstances, including 'the whole probabilities of the case, and the judicial history of the claim.'

Quick Take

The Court held that an action may be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious based on the judicial history of the claim even where the defence of res judicata is not technically available because the questions are not identical in form.

Headnote

No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Legal Areas

Property Law

Linked Principles

Legal principles extracted from this case

01In determining whether an action is frivolous and vexatious and should be dismissed, the Court must have regard to all the circumstances, including 'the whole probabilities of the case, and the judicial history of the claim.'
02
03
04

Start free trial

Free trial — no card required

Case Details

Citation[1909] HCA 60

Reported(1909) 9 CLR 366

CourtHCA

JurisdictionCommonwealth

Decision Date30 September 1909

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Reported

(1909) 9 CLR 366

Authorities Cited1›

Cases considered by Bayne v Blake (No 3)

Referred to (1)

Bayne v Baillieu [1908] HCA 39

Subsequent Judicial Consideration2›

Cases that have considered Bayne v Blake (No 3)

Referred to (2)

Michales v Dimoski and Ors [2007] NSWLEC 443 DPP v Ali & Anor [2008] VSC 167

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

Michales v Dimoski and Ors [2007] NSWLEC 443Referred to

DPP v Ali & Anor [2008] VSC 167Referred to

The duty of a solicitor to advise a client of the risks of litigation extends to advising on the prospects of recovery of costs in the event of success, particularly where the opposing party may lack the means to satisfy a costs order

The duty of a solicitor to advise a client of the risks of litigation extends to advising on the prospects of recovery of costs in the event of success, particularly where the opposing party may lack the means to satisfy a costs order.

Bayne v Blake (No 3) at [30]

Where a representee establishes that a representation was made with reckless indifference to truth, the Castlereagh-Mornington doctrine of estoppel by representation permits an estoppel even absent proof of detrimental reliance, provided the representor's conduct evinces a settled intention to mislead

Where a representee establishes that a representation was made with reckless indifference to truth, the Castlereagh-Mornington doctrine of estoppel by representation permits an estoppel even absent proof of detrimental reliance, provided the representor's conduct evinces a settled intention to mislead.

Bayne v Blake (No 3) at [37]