AB v Beer

Case [2018] WASCA 12


JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION:   AB -v- BEER [2018] WASCA 12

CORAM:   MURPHY JA

BEECH JA

HEARD:   22 DECEMBER 2017

DELIVERED          :   12 FEBRUARY 2018

FILE NO/S:   CACV 89 of 2017

BETWEEN:   AB

Appellant

AND

INGO BEER
First Respondent

INNER CITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
Second Respondent

MOBILE COMMUNITY OUTREACH TEAM
Third Respondent

MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL
Fourth Respondent

STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Fifth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :CORBOY J

Citation  :AB -v- BEER [2017] WASC 199

File No  :GDA 9 of 2016, GDA 10 of 2016, GDA 1 of 2017, CIV 3024 of 2016

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for extension of time - Application to join parties - Appellant's case not filed - Whether appeal should be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA)

Application for joinder of parties - No arguable basis for joinder of parties

Legislation:

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA)

Result:

Application to extend time, join parties and have parties give evidence dismissed
Appeal dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     In person

First Respondent           :     Ms C J Thatcher

Second Respondent      :     Ms C J Thatcher

Third Respondent          :     Ms C J Thatcher

Fourth Respondent        :     Ms C J Thatcher

Fifth Respondent           :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant:     In person

First Respondent           :     State Solicitor for Western Australia

Second Respondent      :     State Solicitor for Western Australia

Third Respondent          :     State Solicitor for Western Australia

Fourth Respondent        :     State Solicitor for Western Australia

Fifth Respondent           :     No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

AB and Mental Health Tribunal [2016] WASAT 71

AB v Beer [2017] WASC 199

  1. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This matter came to a hearing on 22 December 2017 by way of a registrar's notice to attend dated 5 December 2017 to consider the appellant's application dated 28 November 2017, and for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Rules).

  2. The appellant's application dated 28 November 2017 seeks orders (amongst other things) for the joinder of a large number of persons and entities as respondents to the appeal, and to require those persons and entities to, in effect, give discovery on oath of 'all documents in their power and/or possession having anything to do with the … Appellant or any of his claims since 1966 to this day'.

  3. The persons and entities sought to be joined include:

    (1)QBE Insurance Group Ltd, its directors, chief executive officers and state managers since 1974;

    (2)The Insurance Commission of Western Australia and its directors and senior officers since 1998;

    (3)CSR Group Ltd and its subsidiaries since 1966;

    (4)Clough Engineering and its predecessors and all its joint venture partners in the Robe River project since 1971;

    (5)Transfield (WA) Pty Ltd and all its managing directors since 1974;

    (6)The…

Continue reading AB v Beer

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
AB v Beer [2018] WASCA 12
Case
[2018] WASCA 12
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AB, the appellant, lodged an appeal against a decision of Corboy J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which dismissed his appeal against a State Administrative Tribunal decision concerning his mental health. AB sought to join a large number of respondents to the appeal, including various companies, government departments, and individuals, and sought discovery of all documents related to him since 1966. AB's application to appeal was supported by an affidavit containing numerous and varied complaints against the respondents, including allegations of conspiracy, unlawful surveillance, and poisoning. The appeal was brought pursuant to the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA). The court was required to determine whether the appeal should be dismissed under r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Rules, which allows for the dismissal of an appeal if it is frivolous or vexatious. Additionally, the court needed to assess the arguable basis for joining the numerous respondents and the discovery application.

The court held that AB's application to appeal was frivolous and vexatious, as the complaints were not supported by any evidence and were speculative. The court found that AB had not demonstrated an arguable basis for joining the numerous respondents, as the allegations against them were not related to the primary decision of the tribunal. The court also noted that the discovery application was excessive and not warranted by the issues in the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal and made orders that the costs of the appeal be paid by AB.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This matter came to a hearing on 22 December 2017 by way of a registrar's notice to attend dated 5 December 2017 to consider the appellant's application dated 28 November 2017, and for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Rules). The appellant's application dated 28 November 2017 seeks orders (amongst other things) for the joinder of a large number of persons and entities as respondents to the appeal, and to require those persons and entities to, in effect, give discovery on oath of 'all documents in their power and/or possession having anything to do with the … Appellant or any of his claims since 1966 to this day'. The persons and entities sought to be joined include:(1)QBE Insurance Group Ltd, its directors, chief executive officers and state managers since 1974;(2)The Insurance Commission of Western Australia and its directors and senior officers since 1998;(3)CSR Group Ltd and its subsidiaries since 1966;(4)Clough Engineering and its predecessors and all its joint venture partners in the Robe River project since 1971;(5)Transfield (WA) Pty Ltd and all its managing directors since 1974;(6)The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, its chief executive officers and Fremantle branch managers since 1972;(7)'The Australia Post' since 1974;(8)The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation since 1966 and 'many of its directors and covert agents';(9)'The Australian Federal Police' and its commissioners since 1966;(10)The Attorneys General and the directors and other executive staff of the Department of the Attorney General since 1966; and(11)Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia and its predecessors since 1975, and lawyers appointed by the Legal Aid Commission. The appellant's application is supported by an affidavit that he swore on the same day. The affidavit refers to a large and disparate variety of complaints spanning many years going back to the 1960s. The affidavit includes allegations to the effect that a 'transmitting device' was implanted in his head, that certain lawyers and government departments conspired to destroy his rights and infect him with diseases, that a camera was unlawfully installed in his left lower jaw in the course of dental work in 1977, that he was poisoned in 1967, and that various government agencies, including the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Federal Police and local and foreign security services, covered up certain criminal activities against the appellant. The appeal in this matter is against a decision of Corboy J on 21 July 2017 in which his Honour dismissed an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal concerning the appellant's mental health: AB v Beer[1] (primary decision). In that decision, his Honour also set aside subpoenas served by the appellant and dismissed an application by the appellant to join additional respondents to the matter.[1] AB v Beer [2017] WASC 199.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.