Cameron, Donald James v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

[1997] FCA 67

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA  No QG 177 of 1996
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE
OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:DONALD JAMES CAMERON

Applicant

AND:AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDERS

CORAM:Hill, Drummond and Whitlam JJ

DATE:22 April 1997

PLACE:Brisbane

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. Mr Cameron pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA  No QG 177 of 1996
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE
OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:DONALD JAMES CAMERON

Applicant

AND:AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

Respondent

CORAM:Hill, Drummond and Whitlam JJ

DATE:22 April 1997

PLACE:Brisbane

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DRUMMOND J: This is an application for leave to appeal the refusal of an application for joinder of an additional party in proceedings pending in the Court by originating application filed on 5 September 1996. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sought an injunction and other relief against Golden Sphere International Incorporated and others in respect of conduct by Golden Sphere alleged to infringe s 61(2A) the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

Golden Sphere is alleged to have promoted a pyramid selling scheme.  On September 23 1996, a document headed Petition for Leave for Joinder as
Respondent signed by Mr Cameron was filed in these proceedings.  The learned primary judge, on 1 October 1996, made an order dismissing the petition and gave a direction that the Deputy Registrar refer any further application by Mr Cameron on his own account or on behalf of any person or organisation to a judge to consider whether it ought to be received.

That direction is not in contention as Mr Cameron has today made clear, but it is appropriate to say that the direction must, in my opinion, be read, when properly construed, as a direction limited to applications that may be presented by Mr Cameron in this action.  It cannot be read as the exercise of the power conferred, for example, by O 21 the Federal Court Rules, to impose a general restriction on the filing of process by Mr Cameron.   There was neither application nor evidence before the Court to justify an order of general application.

Mr Cameron's document takes the form of a petition by the Citizens for Financial Independence in the State of Queensland.  The petition is signed in this way:

“For THE CITIZENS FOR FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE ASSOCIATION (unincorporated)

per   Don Cameron.”

The entire document is in type script save that the signature, “Don Cameron”, is in handwriting.  It is quite clear from the petition itself and from other material in the appeal book that was before the learned primary judge that the application which Mr Cameron brought before the judge on 1 October was for an order
joining the Association I have referred to, not for an order joining himself as a party to the Commission's proceedings against Golden Sphere.

This Association is described in the petition document as being unincorporated.  Letters signed by Mr Cameron on behalf of the Association are also in evidence and they are on a letterhead which confirms that the Association is unincorporated.  It is basic law that an unincorporated association not being a legal entity cannot sue in its name.  There are suggestions in the material that some members of the Association may have been involved in the scheme promoted by Golden Sphere which is the subject of the Commission's actions, but even if every member of the Association was a certificate holder in the scheme, the application for joinder of the unincorporated association would still have to be dismissed.

The application for these reasons was, in my opinion, doomed to failure and the learned primary judge's dismissal of the petition was well justified.  I would dismiss the application for leave.

HILL J:   Yes, I agree.

WHITLAM J:    I agree with Drummond J.

HILL J:   Yes, the orders then of the Court will be that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

HILL J:   The Court would order that Mr Cameron pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

I certify that this and the preceding three pages
are a true copy of the reasons for
judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Date:  22 April 1997