Brisbane City Council v Mathews, involved an application brought under the Vexatious Proceedings Act as a result of the numerous proceedings brought by the respondent Mathews against the Brisbane City Council and other parties. Mathews was a disability pensioner as a result of a head injury he had sustained many years before, and his injuries affected his ability to concentrate for long periods. Justice Fryberg heard the application before all chamber applications in the list that day in order to assist the respondent, who was self-represented, in being able to present his case. After noting that Mathews had brought multiple proceedings, Justice Fryberg found that they were vexatious under the meaning of the Act:
The features of the proceedings to which I have been referred generally are in my view accurately summarised by . There is a joinder of multiple defendants without any basis for joinder; there are allegations of bias against judges which are completely unsubstantiated ; there is the making of hopeless claims; there are unparticularised allegations of deceit and fraud; there are exaggerated damages claims; there is non-compliance with Court proceedings and in particular a failure to deliver complying pleadings; and finally, there is bringing of claims in respect of which it is not possible to demonstrate the suffering of any loss.
As a result, Justice Fryberg declared Mathews a vexatious litigant and made an order prohibiting him from commencing any new proceedings against BCC.
Legal Services Commissioner v Quinn
The case of Legal Services Commissioner v Quinn, concerned a Discipline Application brought against a solicitor in the Legal Services Tribunal. The Application followed Quinn’s guilty plea and conviction for importing child pornography, possessing a child abuse computer game and possessing child abuse photographs in the District Court of Queensland in 2007. The Application was brought by the Legal Services Commission following the convictions. Justice Fryberg’s judgment was delivered ex tempore and was notably brief, since this was an extremely uncomplicated case for the tribunal. At the hearing, His Honour stated that:
I am satisfied that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct. I recommend that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll... I order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application assessed as for a Supreme Court application.
As a result, Quinn’s entitlement to practice was removed.
The accused, a surgeon, was accused of negligently cutting a patient's vein during an operation and prescribing blood-thinning drugs that hastened her death. On 5 March 2009, a hearing took place in order to resolve disclosure issues, as well as when the trial would be held. His Honour rejected the proposed directions submitted by the defence because they would not provide sufficient disclosure to the prosecution of the expert evidence to be presented by the defence. In August 2009, new evidence emerged from nurses, leading to Justice Fryberg suggesting that the case against the accused was not strong enough to likely lead to conviction. The prosecution subsequently dropped the charge, and so Ward was acquitted.
R v Patel
In 2013, Justice Fryberg presided over the retrial of former Bundaberg surgeon Jayant Patel for one of the manslaughter charges, which sat for 22 days and heard from 25 witnesses. Patel was acquitted of the charge by the jury.
