Greer v NSW Police Service and Ors

[2002] NSWSC 914

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION:     Greer v NSW Police Service & Ors [2002]  NSWSC 914

CURRENT JURISDICTION:      Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S):      10932 of 2002

HEARING DATE{S):    23 September 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:      23/09/2002

PARTIES:
George Greer (Plaintiff)
v
NSW Police Service (First Defendant)
State Debt Recovery Office (Second Defendant)
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW (Third Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:        Master Malpass     

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:       Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):    Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:   Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
N/A

SOLICITORS:
N/A (Plaintiff)
I V Knight - Crown Solicitor (Defendants)

CATCHWORDS:
Litigant in person
proceedings that are clearly hopeless
apparent attempt to procure a further adjournment by sending a purported medical certificate of dubious authenticity
further adjournment a futile exercise
proceedings dismissed so as to save the throwing away of further costs.

ACTS CITED:
N/A

DECISION:
See Paragraph 13.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Master Malpass

Monday 23 September 2002

10932 of 2002     George Greer v NSW Police Service & Ors.

JUDGMENT

1. Master:  The plaintiff is a litigant in person. He filed a summons in this Court on 5 April 2002.  He claims relief inter alia in respect of his motor vehicle driver’s licence. There are three defendants. The defendants have moved to have the process either struck aside or dismissed.

2. The application was given a special fixture and was listed for hearing on Monday 23 September 2002.

3. The plaintiff has committed a number of driving offences. His licence was suspended from 16 January 2002 for a period of three months. This was done because by then he had exceeded the prescribed limit of demerit points. Because of unpaid fines, a notice of restriction of business has been given by the State Debt Recovery Office to the Roads and Traffic Authority.

4. The plaintiff has pursued unsuccessful litigation in both the Local and District Court. He now seeks to pursue these matters in this Court.

5. Why the proceedings have been brought in this court remains a mystery. Perhaps it is because he has been unsuccessful in the other courts.

6. The matter has been before the court on a number of occasions. On one of those occasions, (24 June 2002), the plaintiff did not appear. An adjournment was sought on his behalf by a friend pursuant to a facsimile transmission. It was sought on the basis that the plaintiff was suffering with irregular chest pains.

7. This brought about an adjournment of the proceedings and a direction that a medical certificate be furnished on the adjourned date if he was unable to attend because of his medical problems. Since then he has appeared before the court.

8. He does not appear today. A document purporting to be a medical certificate has been sent by facsimile both to the solicitor for the defendants and the court. It was received by the court this morning.  It was not accompanied by any communication from or on behalf of the plaintiff.

9. The content of the document is not entirely clear. It seems that it may state that the plaintiff is being treated for medical illness and will be unfit for work from 23 September 2002 to 30 September 2002. It purports to bear a signature.  The word “Rahman” is written below it.  The name “Balmain Hospital” together with its address and telephone number then appears thereunder.  The nature of any such medical illness is not described. Even if it be a genuine medical certificate, there remains a failure to sufficiently explain why there is no appearance by or on behalf of the plaintiff today.

10. The plaintiff did appear when the special fixture was allocated and was aware of the hearing date. He has sworn an affidavit in support of the Summons. I have had regard to the material set out in that affidavit. Whilst it does not demonstrate any entitlement to the relief sought by him, it does reveal a history of non-appearance by the plaintiff in the courts.

11. There is no application before the court by the plaintiff (be it for an adjournment or otherwise). The defendants seek to proceed and have the proceedings dismissed. After careful consideration of the relevant circumstances I have decided that the application should be dealt with today. The Summons is clearly hopeless and doomed to failure. It is an abuse of process. The onus of establishing an entitlement to summary relief has been clearly demonstrated.

12. It is in the interest of the parties and the court that the Summons be dismissed without further delay. It would be a futile exercise to further adjourn the proceedings. It would only see the throwing away of further costs.

13. The Summons is dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the Summons.

**********

LAST UPDATED:               02/10/2002