Gable v Quigley MLA LLB JP - [2019] WADC 117

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   GABLE -v- QUIGLEY MLA LLB JP [2019] WADC 117
CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT
HEARD:   8 AUGUST 2019
DELIVERED          :   22 AUGUST 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 708 of 2019
BETWEEN:   DAMON GENE GABLE
Plaintiff
AND
HONOURABLE JOHN QUIGLEY MLA LLB JP
First Defendant
WEST AUSTRALIA POLICE SERVICE t/as WEST AUSTRALIA POLICE SERVICE
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out writ and statement of claim

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 67(2)(a)

Result:

Writ struck out

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
First Defendant	:	Ms F Seaward
Second Defendant	:	Ms F Seaward

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
First Defendant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Second Defendant	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:

On 22 February 2019 the plaintiff filed a writ of summons naming the Honourable John Quigley MLA LLB JP Western Australia Attorney General Office as the first defendant and West Australia Police as the second defendant.
The writ was indorsed by a largely incomprehensible indorsement of claim which I reproduce below.
(The following quote is reproduced with original typographical errors)
The creditor – claimant damon by equitable lien has commenced action 0 18 RSC punitive damages, as at the date of the writ of summons, injury due and owing by the defendant pursuant on this day of; ______ month of __________ 2019
Due process s 51 ss24 Constitution owed to all-natural man civil practice and procedure owed to the plaintiff, O 9 s.3 RSC Crown must act, and be seen to act, as a model litigant 'is principal not to limit civil practice and extends to criminal law to carry out in. is 'not limited to civil practice and procedure.
Morley & Ors v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
O 6 r.1(1) RSC, creditor issue writ of summons concise statement of the nature of the claim made, and of the relief or remedy required in the action.
I. Man binding contract with commerce the trustee ~debtor West Australia Atterony General dept; do right to all manner of people, according to law, without fear or favour, a□ection or ill will, s5 292, s 116 Commonwealth Constitution, Confirmation of charters 1297 and Magna Carta -39 Crown in right of this jurisdiction laws of Parliament, the Crown in all capacities O 52 r 1 RSC Injunction ~ Prohibition to grant injunctive exercise of legal or 'Equitable before the Law Bench Book rights' to his protection.8.1.1 Mr Gable scope of offence is and was not to obstruct s 143 crimes but act his rights; ICCPR III 6,8 9 reclaim O 18 r 2 RSC counter claim. Administer property – un warranted – unreasonable‑excessive assault by the West Australia Mandurah Police office PD 16042 Dixon s 222, s409(1) fruadly (c) gains of pecuiry Criminal Code act on 26^th-27th Jan 00:00-03:00 hrs Mandurah and Feb. Midland 2019 13:44, Police administer property both of the man and automobile, s80…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Gable v Quigley MLA LLB JP

Details

AGLC: Gable v Quigley MLA LLB JP [2019] WADC 117
Case: [2019] WADC 117
Decision Date: 22 AUGUST 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the plaintiff, Gable, sought to bring a claim against the defendant, Quigley, a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The nature of the dispute involved the validity of a writ and statement of claim that had been filed. Quigley, the defendant, moved to have the writ and statement of claim struck out, arguing that they were invalid and that the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case. The central legal issues that the court had to decide involved the proper interpretation of the writ, the compliance of the statement of claim with statutory requirements, and whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear the case.

The court considered whether the writ and statement of claim complied with the relevant legislative provisions. It assessed whether the writ was properly executed and whether the statement of claim contained the necessary particulars as required by statute. The court also examined whether the claim fell within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. After a thorough examination of the writ and statement of claim, the court found that they did not comply with the necessary statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court determined that the claim was not within its jurisdiction, as it did not involve a matter that could be heard by the Federal Court. As a result, the court decided to strike out the writ.

The court's decision was based on the conclusion that the writ and statement of claim were not valid and did not meet the statutory requirements for filing in the Federal Court. The court found that the writ was not properly executed and that the statement of claim did not contain the necessary particulars. Additionally, the court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case. The writ was struck out, and the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Writ struck out

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.