Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited

[2002] FCA 1393

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited [2002] FCA 1393

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER V PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED & ORS

SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
12 NOVEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	OF 2002

BETWEEN:

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER
APPLICANT

AND:

PHILIP'S ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS PROPRIETY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 NOVEMBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Registrar should refuse to accept the application and affidavit presented by Mr Croker for filing.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	OF 2002

BETWEEN:

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER
APPLICANT

AND:

PHILIP'S ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS PROPRIETY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	12 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr Croker, to whom I shall refer as “the applicant”, has sought to file an application and an affidavit in the Registry of this Court.  A Registrar has sought a direction from me, as Duty Judge, pursuant to Federal Court Rules (“FCR”) O 46 r 7A.  Order 46 r 7A provides as follows:

   “If a document presented to a Registrar in any proceeding, including any document which is or will if issue  become an originating document, appears to a Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the process of the Court or to be frivolous or vexatious, the Registrar may refuse to accept or issue it or may seek the direction of a Judge who may direct him -

   (a)to accept or issue it; or

   (b)to refuse to accept or issue it; or

   (c)to refuse to accept or issue it without the leave of a Judge first had and obtained.”

2. The application seeks an order “annulling all dealings between the applicant and all respondent’s [sic]”.  The application also seeks an order awarding the applicant the sum of $3 million “or such other sum as the Court deems fit in compensatory, exemplary and nominal damages”.

3. The affidavit is not easy to follow.  It seems, however, that the applicant’s complaint concerns the purchase of a single mobile phone as long ago as November 1999.  The price of the telephone appears to have been $79.00.

4. This is not the first time the applicant has sought to make a complaint about the purchase of the mobile telephone.  In Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd (N 197 of 2000), the applicant made similar claims.

5. In a judgment given on 17 July 2000, Branson J ordered that the applicant’s statement of claim in those proceedings be struck out, but that he have leave to file and serve further pleadings: Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 991. Her Honour made the orders striking out the statement of claim because the pleading was so…