Atkinson v Atlas Investments Limited

[2004] NSWCA 355

CITATION:	ATKINSON v ATLAS INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2004] NSWCA 355
HEARING DATE(S):	23 September 2004
JUDGMENT DATE:	23 September 2004
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 1; Beazley JA at 11; Santow J at 12
DECISION:	Application dismissed with costs.
PARTIES :	George ATKINSON v ATLAS INVESTMENTS LIMITED
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40127/04
COUNSEL:	Appellant: In Person Respondent: D H Muir SC. J B Conomy
SOLICITORS:	Appellant: Self litigant Respondent: Holman Webb

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	Court of Appeal
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Ipp JA

CA 40127/04

MASON P
BEAZLEY JA
SANTOW JA

Thursday 23 September 2004

George ATKINSON v ATLAS INVESTMENTS LIMITED

1 MASON P: The proceedings in the Court today are an application by Mr Atkinson to review the orders made by Ipp JA when he struck out further proceedings in the Court of Appeal. By that stage Mr Atkinson was representing himself as he has represented himself today.

2 There had been an application for leave to appeal in this Court filed to challenge orders made by Burchett AJ in which he summarily dismissed proceedings in the Equity Division brought by Mr Atkinson. From those orders application for leave to appeal was brought to the Court of Appeal. At that stage Mr Atkinson was represented by a solicitor and by barristers. Documents were filed. On the day of the hearing the lawyers appeared (as it turned out, before myself) and told the court that an agreement had been reached. Consent orders were handed up to me and I made orders by consent at the request of the legal representatives who were then present.

3 Those orders had annexed to them terms and conditions involving signing of documents and payment of money, and there was in effect an agreement that if those things happened then formal orders would be made for the dismissal of the appeal proceedings. Those formal orders were made and have been entered. They were made after affidavits were filed in the Court of Appeal Registry indicating that the terms and conditions upon which the matter had been taken out of the list before me had been complied with.

4 Mr Atkinson has filed quite lengthy documents, including affidavits and submissions. They tell the background of the very complex dispute involving a property in Muswellbrook and dealings in Vanuatu and other parts of the world. It was an attempt to litigate in the Supreme Court of New South Wales some of those issues that led Burchett AJ to summarily dismiss the proceedings because of the principles of issue estoppel including Anshun estoppel.

5 Subsequent to the hearing before me when I made the consent orders, Mr Atkinson has become a self-represented litigant. The matter he wants to agitate is his claim that the lawyers who appeared before me consenting to orders were not authorised by him to consent to the orders that they did consent to. This is not the place for any such issue to be agitated. If there was a breakdown of communication or lack of instruction, and I hasten to add I make no judgment on that matter because we just have not looked at the detail, but if that happened that is a matter between Mr Atkinson and the lawyers. As far as the court was concerned the lawyers who then represented Mr Atkinson had instructions to consent to the orders that they consented to. They did consent and the orders that I made eventually worked themselves out into the orders that were made and entered in the records of the Court of Appeal which provided for the dismissal of the summons for leave to appeal challenging the orders made by Burchett AJ.

6 For these reasons the attempt by Mr Atkinson to re-open the appeal that he made in his application before Ipp JA was doomed to failure. I interrupted Mr Atkinson and effectively stopped him from continuing a fairly lengthy account of the background dispute between himself and Atlas Investments involving the Sabra Trust and Mr Noall. I did that because, while these matters I acknowledge are of significance to Mr Atkinson and remain part of the dispute as he understands it, they are not part of the dispute in the Court of Appeal. We are only concerned, and can under the Supreme Court Act only be concerned, with matters that are brought to this Court. The only matter that was brought to this Court was withdrawn. As I have indicated, if it was withdrawn through some breakdown of communications then I repeat that would be a matter between Mr Atkinson and the lawyers who were then representing him.

7 Mr Atkinson, very properly if I may say so, indicated that he understood the situation as I had previously explained to him as regards the jurisdiction of this court and in light of that he was content not to continue with what I have called the background history. I have endeavoured to explain that which I am sure he does understand, why this Court can do nothing but dismiss the application now brought to challenge the orders made by Ipp JA.

8 The result of the matter is that the appeal from Burchett AJ remains withdrawn and this Court does not have any appellate jurisdiction with respect to those orders or the underlying dispute which Mr Atkinson is concerned about.

9 The order of the court is that the application is dismissed.

10 The ordinary order, and it seems the one that must follow, is that costs will follow the event. The application is dismissed with costs.

11 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Justice Mason.

12 SANTOW JA: I agree with Justice Mason

**********

Last Modified: 10/07/2004