Supreme Court (Vexatious Litigants) Amendment Bill

Wednesday 16 September 2026

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (17:21): I rise to speak in support of the Supreme Court (Vexatious Litigants) Amendment Bill. This bill is about protecting the integrity of our justice system and making sure that the courts remain available for people who genuinely need them. Our courts are there to resolve disputes, protect rights and provide a pathway to justice. That system depends on people being able to bring matters before the courts when they have a legitimate case to make, but that access comes with a responsibility to use the legal system properly.

When proceedings are repeatedly brought without reasonable grounds or are used to harass another person, cause delay or pursue some other improper purpose, the consequences extend well beyond the people involved in that particular case. Court time is consumed, public resources are used, and genuine matters can be delayed whilst people on the receiving end can be left facing considerable financial and emotional strain.

South Australia's existing laws in this area are no longer adequate for the way our justice system operates today. The current section 39 of the Supreme Court Act dates back to 1935 when it was adapted from English legislation first introduced in 1896. It has not undergone any kind of substantial reform that is needed to reflect the modern civil justice system. This is a remarkably long time for such an important part of our legal framework to remain largely unchanged.

The independent Adelaide Law Review has described the current process as rarely used, resource intensive and onerous. That is a problem in itself. A mechanism intended to protect the courts from repeated abuse is of limited value if it is so cumbersome that it is difficult to use when it is needed. The bill replaces that outdated framework with a more comprehensive statutory scheme.

One of the significant changes is to broaden the definition of proceedings that can be considered. The bill recognises that conduct can amount to an abuse of process or be undertaken for a wrongful purpose regardless of the subjective intention of the person bringing the proceedings. It also gives the Supreme Court stronger powers to intervene where a person has repeatedly instituted or conducted proceedings of this kind or where they have acted together with someone who is already subject to an order.

Importantly, the scope of the scheme will no longer be confined simply to proceedings in the South Australian courts. The definition will capture proceedings instituted or conducted in any Australian court or tribunal. That reflects the reality of the modern legal system. A person determined to misuse legal processes is not necessarily going to confine that conduct to a single jurisdiction.

The bill also gives the Supreme Court the ability to act on its own motion, rather than relying entirely on another party to initiate the process. State courts and tribunals and their registrars will also be able to refer matters to the Supreme Court where there appear to be proper grounds for consideration.

Where an order is made, the court will have a range of options available to it. These include preventing a person from commencing further proceedings without the court's permission, staying proceedings that have already been commenced, regulating how documents are filed, and requiring security for costs. The court may also restrict direct contact with court or tribunal staff other than a registrar and make any other order that is appropriate in the circumstances. These are significant powers, and they should be, but they are powers to be exercised by a court within a framework that recognises the importance of access to justice.

This bill is not about closing the doors of the courts to people who have legitimate grievances. It is about ensuring that those doors cannot be repeatedly used as a vehicle for harassment, delay or other improper conduct. There is another aspect of this legislation that deserves particular attention. The Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence heard evidence about the way legal processes can sometimes be misused as another means of controlling or continuing abuse. The misuse of both criminal and civil justice processes can place further pressure on victim survivors and compound the harm they have already experienced.

The royal commission also made clear that delay within the justice system has real consequences. For a victim survivor, waiting months or years for a matter to be resolved is not simply an administrative inconvenience. It can prolong trauma, make it harder to give evidence, delay access to intervention orders or compensation and, in some circumstances, contribute to a person disengaging from the justice system altogether, which is why efficient courts matter.

Every moment of court time taken up by proceedings that have no proper basis is time that could be used for another matter, and every unnecessary delay has the potential to affect a person who is waiting for a decision that may have a profound impact on their life. The challenge for legislation such as this is to recognise both sides of that equation. People must retain the right to seek justice, while the justice system must have the means to respond when its processes are being deliberately or repeatedly abused.

The bill also provides the court with the ability to make an intervention order where there is a reasonable basis to suspect that the person concerned may commit an act of abuse against another person. That provides an additional safeguard where misuse of legal proceedings is connected with a broader pattern of threatening or abusive behaviour.

Finally, the bill provides for a public register of orders made by the Supreme Court. The register will provide greater transparency and make the operation of the scheme more consistent with equivalent arrangements in other jurisdictions. Technology has also changed the environment in which our courts operate. Artificial intelligence now makes it possible to generate huge volumes of material almost instantly, including documents based on pseudolegal arguments that courts or other parties may then be required to consider. The answer is not to restrict legitimate access to technology or to the courts. It is to make sure that our legal framework is capable of dealing with the misuse of these tools.

This bill brings South Australia's framework into the modern era. It gives the Supreme Court clearer and more practical powers to deal with repeated abuse of legal processes while preserving the fundamental right of people with genuine matters to have those matters heard. Our justice system is one of the most important public institutions we have. It must be accessible, fair and capable of responding to the circumstances of the time.

This legislation will help ensure that court resources are directed towards the matters that genuinely require them, that unnecessary delays are reduced and that people who are already experiencing significant hardship are not subject to further abuse through the legal system. For all of those reasons that I have outlined, I can say that there is a wide variety of issues that have been raised through this legislation, and I support the bill.