The South Australian government has passed the first significant changes to vexatious litigant laws since 1935, expanding the definition of vexatious conduct and strengthening protections for the courts. The reforms amend the state’s Supreme Court Act 1935 and give state courts new powers to manage individuals who abuse the legal system. David Colovic, president of the Law Society of South Australia, said the adjustments are long overdue and essential for the efficient administration of justice.
New powers for the courts
Under the updated legislation, a South Australian court can now consider any proceedings amounting to an abuse of process pursued for a wrongful purpose as “vexatious,” even if the conduct is not repetitive or persistent. The law also allows courts to recognise various litigant orders from other Australian jurisdictions to declare someone commencing proceedings in South Australia as a vexatious litigant. Additionally, a court can deem someone a vexatious litigant on its own motion, removing the need for the attorney-general or another party to file a specific application.
When dealing with these cases, a state court can prohibit the individual from initiating proceedings without permission, dismiss existing proceedings, and order the payment of legal costs. Colovic acknowledged that while some individuals seeking legal recourse are sincere in their attempts to obtain justice for a perceived wrong, vexatious litigants often aim to hinder, harass, intimidate, delay, embarrass, or unreasonably burden opposing parties. These actions frequently force opponents to incur substantial and unnecessary legal costs.
Trends driving the changes
Colovic highlighted that the low number of vexatious actions in South Australia has been increasing. He attributed this rise to two primary causes: the development of artificial intelligence and the activities of sovereign citizens. He noted that artificial intelligence has added fuel to the fire by providing an efficient way to produce detailed and sophisticated legal gibberish. Sovereign citizens frequently use the justice system to harm other parties and evade penalties, often relying on pseudolaw.
This trend places a strain on judicial resources that could otherwise benefit lawfully attempting court users. Colovic described pseudolaw as resembling a conventional legal argument, but in reality having no basis in legal fact or genuine case law. He characterised it as “all form and no substance.”
The Law Society of South Australia has identified dealing with AI and the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime as key priorities for 2026.
Goals for 2026
The society welcomed legislation passed in November 2025. The law intends to raise the interest rate ceiling on the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund. This change aims to future-proof the fund.
