There is a small part of the brief judgment of the High Court of Australia in PNJ v R  HCA 6 (10 February 2009) that is of interest to us all.
It concerns the concept of abuse of process, and is as follows (3):
"It is not possible to describe exhaustively what will constitute an abuse of process [Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales  HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 at 265-267 -  per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ;  HCA 27.]. It may be accepted, however, that many cases of abuse of process will exhibit at least one of three characteristics [Rogers v The Queen  HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251 at 286 per McHugh J;  HCA 42. See also Batistatos  HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 at 267  per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ.]:
(a) the invoking of a court's processes for an illegitimate or collateral purpose;
(b) the use of the court's procedures would be unjustifiably oppressive to a party; or
(c) the use of the court's procedures would bring the administration of justice into disrepute."