Colin Dunstan v John Highman

[2010] ACTSC 133

COLIN DUNSTAN v JOHN HIGHMAN & ORS
[2010] ACTSC 133 (27 October 2010)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - summary judgment- security for costs.

Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), ss 11, 21B, 33
Public Service Act 1922 (Cth) (repealed), s 61(2)

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 1147, 1900, 1901

Dunstan v Comcare [2007J FCA 504
Dunstan v Holland [2008J FCA 1450
Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (No 3) [2006J FCA 916
Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007J FCA 191
Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007J FCA 1326
Dunstan v Orr (2008) 171 IR 135; [2008J FCA 31
Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd v Scott Farmer and Bravium Pty Ltd [2009J ACTSC 143
Galovac Pty Limited v Australian Capital Territory [201OJ ACTSC 132
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Proprietary Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589
Twining v Curtis [201OJ ACTSC 115

Halsbury's Laws of Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths)  Vol 20, 325 Practice and Procedure

No. SC 273 of 2010

Judge: Jagot J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:   27 October 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 273 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY)

BETWEEN:               COLIN DUNSTAN

Plaintiff

AND:     JOHN HIGHMAN

First Defendant

JOHN GROWDER

Second Defendant

ROBYN ORR

Third Defendant

RICHARD HIGHFIELD

Fourth Defendant

GEOFF SEYMOUR

Fifth Defendant

COMMONWEALTH OF

AUSTRALIA

Sixth Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Jagot J
Date:  27 October 2010
Place:  Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The defendants’ application filed 30 July 2010 be dismissed.

   
   
   

2. The defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application, as agreed or taxed.                   

1. By an application filed on 30 July 2010 the defendants seek an order for summary judgment against the plaintiff or an order that the plaintiff provide security for costs in the sum of$100,000.

1. The plaintiff, Colin Dunstan, was an employee of the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO). The first to fifth defendants were also employees of the ATO.  The sixth defendant is the Commonwealth of Australia.

1. The circumstances in which Mr Dunstan ceased to work for the ATO have given rise to numerous proceedings, including the prosecution and conviction of Mr Dunstan for sending 22 letter bombs to various people apparently connected with those circumstances (including the first, second and fifth defendants to these proceedings). Mr Dunstan's various claims in the earlier proceedings have not been substantiated. Those proceedings, in consequence, have all been dismissed.  This is the background against which the present proceedings are brought

1. The defendants to the present proceedings contend that summary judgment should be granted against Mr Dunstan under r 1147 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT). The grounds on which the defendants rely for summary judgment are that the proceedings: - (i) in whole or part are statute barred by expiry of the limitation period, (ii) are precluded from being maintained by reason of Anshun estoppel (Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Proprietary Limited (1981) 147 CLR 589), and (iii) are vexatious and frivolous.

1. If established, the grounds on which the defendants…