Bayliss v Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister's Department

[2001] FCA 576

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bayliss v Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister’s Department [2001] FCA 576

ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAYLISS v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY CHIEF MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT & ORS
A 19 of 2000

ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAILIFF v AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE & ORS
A 77 of 2000

WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
15 MAY 2001
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 19 of 2000

BETWEEN:	ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAYLISS Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY CHIEF MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT First respondent
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY URBAN SERVICES Second Respondent
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY STANDING COMMITTEE URBAN SERVICES Third Respondent
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY PLANNING AND LAND MANAGEMENT Fourth Respondent
COMMUNITY HOUSING CANBERRA LTD ACN 081 354 752 Fifth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY HOUSING Sixth Respondent
NATIONAL ROADS AND MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION ACN 000 016 722 Seventh Respondent
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY AND WATER LIMITED Eighth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN GAS LIGHT COMPANY LIMITED ARBN 052 167 405 Ninth Respondent
ECOWISE SERVICES (AUST) PTY LTD ACN 083 075 030 Tenth Respondent
CANBERRA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 003 157 515 Eleventh Respondent
THE COX GROUP ACN 002 535 891 Twelfth Respondent
PURDON ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 008 610 080 Thirteenth Respondent
PENDON CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 079 156 988 Fourteenth Respondent
CIC PENDON PTY LTD ACN 088 774 789 Fifteenth Respondent
CARDINAL ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 059 553 892 Sixteenth Respondent
AMP LIMITED ACN 079 354 519 Seventeenth Respondent
JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   Leave to appeal is refused.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 77 of 2000

BETWEEN:	ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAILIFF Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY First Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v LES ODEWAHN Second Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v SIMON BRETTELL Third Respondent
RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY Fourth Respondent
PHILIP ALAN SELTH Fifth Respondent
RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY Sixth Respondent
RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY Seventh Respondent
PHILIP ALAN SELTH Eighth Respondent
ANTHONY SAMANTHA KIDNEY Ninth Respondent
JAN MARGARET BLANK Tenth Respondent
CHRISTOPHER ALAN EDWARDS Eleventh Respondent
ANDREW JEWELL Twelfth Respondent
VERNON LEE Thirteenth Respondent
ALISON MANDERS Fourteenth Respondent
RM WILLIAMS Fifteenth Respondent
SUSAN McGEE Sixteenth Respondent
MARK MACKENZIE Seventeenth Respondent
DAVID TONER Eighteenth Respondent
MICHAEL SHIHOFF Nineteenth Respondent
ERIN PARKER Twentieth Respondent
ANDREW TAYLOR Twenty first Respondent
SHARON KELLY Twenty second Respondent
SHARON KELLY Twenty third Respondent
HEATHER WALLACE Twenty fourth Respondent
DOUG GILLESPIE Twenty fifth Respondent
DI DEBENHAM Twenty sixth Respondent
LES ODEWAHN Twenty seventh Respondent
LES ODEWAHN Twenty eighth Respondent
JOHN LALOR Twenty ninth Respondent
WARREN NICHOLL ACT CORONER’S ARSON INQUIRY Thirtieth Respondent
ACT TENANCY TRIBUNAL Thirty first Respondent
ACT MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL Thirty second Respondent
ACT GUARDIANSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY TRIBUNAL Thirty third Respondent
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA Thirty fourth Respondent
UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE Thirty fifth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Thirty sixth Respondent
UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thirty seventh Respondent
UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY Thirty eighth Respondent
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Thirty ninth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY MAGISTRATES COURT Forty first Respondent
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT Forty second Respondent
HYATT HOTEL Forty third Respondent
WIG AND PEN Forty fourth Respondent
APPROVED SYSTEMS Forty fifth Respondent
ANUTECH Forty sixth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1994/2181 14/4/94 Forty seventh Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1993/5124 10/5/94 Forty eighth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1993/1575 12/7/94 Forty ninth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1994/5102 30/3/95 Fiftieth Respondent
NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE 18/09/96 $400 Fifty first Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1986/2291 19/8/97 Fifty second Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1995/5869 19/8/97 Fifty third Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE V PETER BAUME Fifty fourth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v BRETT COOK Fifty fifth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v SIMON BRETTELL Fifty sixth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v LES ODEWAHN Fifty seventh Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY Fifty eight Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v KATE KELLY Fifty ninth Respondent
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC2000/4141 30/8/00 Sixtieth Respondent
VICTORIAN POLICE Sixty first Respondent
WALSHE & WHITELOCK Sixty second Respondent
ROYAL DARWIN HOSPITAL Sixty third Respondent
JASMINE COLLINS Sixty fourth Respondent
ANNE COLLINS Sixty fifth Respondent
CHRISTINE BAYLISS ACT – 592 7/12/95 Sixty sixth Respondent
ACT/NSW CORONERS ON RTA MANSLAUGHTER OF VANESSA CAMILLE BAYLISS 7/12/85 Sixty seventh Respondent
JACQUES ANTIQUES Sixty eighth Respondent
RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY FALSE ACCUSATION OF THREAT TO KILL Sixty ninth Respondent
RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 1ST FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventieth Respondent
RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 2ND FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy first Respondent
RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 3RD FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy second Respondent
RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 4TH FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy third Respondent
RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 5TH FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy fourth Respondent
RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 6TH FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy fifth Respondent
JUSTICE TERRENCE HIGGINS SUPREME COURT ORDER OF 1ST MAY 1996 Seventy sixth Respondent
JUSTICE JEFFREY MILES SUPREME COURT ORDER OF 7TH NOVEMBER 2000 Seventy seventh Respondent
JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   Leave to appeal is refused.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 19 of 2000
BETWEEN:	ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAYLISS Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY CHIEF MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT & ORS Respondents
A 77 of 2000
BETWEEN:	ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAILIFF Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v MICHELLE PIERCEY & ORS Respondents

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE:	15 MAY 2001
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

1. Alexander Marcel André Sebastian Bailiff (who was formerly known by the surname Bayliss) has commenced two proceedings in this Court relating to judgments of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (“the Supreme Court”).  Matter A 19 of 2000 purports to be an appeal from a judgment of Crispin J given on 17 March 2000, in which his Honour summarily dismissed an action commenced by Mr Bailiff in the Supreme Court.  The order made by Crispin J was an interlocutory order and, accordingly, Mr Bailiff requires leave to appeal. 

2. The originating application filed by Mr Bailiff in the Supreme Court was difficult to comprehend and was plainly frivolous and vexatious.  His Honour therefore struck it out under O 29 r 4 of the Supreme Court Rules.  A notice of motion also before his Honour suffered from similar defects and his Honour refused that relief as well.

3. Matter A 77 of 2000 is an application for leave to appeal from orders made by Miles CJ on 7 and 20 November 2000 striking out several purported appeals from magistrates and associated applications lodged in the Supreme Court Registry on 10 October 2000.  These applications plainly suffered from the defects identified by the Chief Justice in his reasons given on 7 and 20 November 2000.

4. Notwithstanding the effective finality of the orders made by both judges it may confidently be stated that these are not cases where the discretion to grant leave should be exercised in favour of Mr Bailiff in accordance with the well known test laid down in Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart IndustriesInc (1991) 33 FCR 397.

5. Application was made by Mr Bailiff this afternoon for adjournment of these appeals on the basis of a document entitled “Claim”.  A copy of this document had been made available to us before we came on the bench.  We had the advantage of reading it and we also heard what it was that Mr Bailiff wanted to say in support of his application for an adjournment.  The explanation offered by Mr Bailiff for his failure to serve notices of appeal on the parties affected by these proceedings was not satisfactory.  The adjournment was refused and Mr Bailiff then departed the courtroom.

6. Accordingly, the order of the Court is, in each matter, that leave to appeal is refused.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Whitlam, Madgwick and Kenny JJ.

Associate:

Dated:             18 June 2001

The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Australian Capital Territory:	K Holmes
Solicitor for the Australian Capital Territory:	ACT Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Commonwealth of Australia:	A Hughes
Solicitor for the Commonwealth of Australia:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for NRMA:	DCD Harper
Solicitor for NRMA:	Abbott Tout
Counsel for Andrew Jewell:	S Hay
Solicitor for Andrew Jewell:	Vandenberg Reid
Date of hearing:	15 May 2001
Date of judgment:	15 May 2001