Ibarcena v Templar

[1999] FCA 900

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ibarcena v Templar [1999] FCA 900

JEREMY PATRICK IBARCENA v ROD TEMPLAR and OTHERS

A10 of 1999

FINN J
CANBERRA
25 JUNE 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A10 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	JEREMY PATRICK IBARCENA Applicant
AND:	ROD TEMPLAR and OTHERS Respondent
JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 JUNE 1999
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        the application be dismissed

2.        the applicant pay the costs of the fourteenth respondent

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A10 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	JEREMY PATRICK IBARCENA Applicant
AND:	ROD TEMPLAR and OTHERS Respondent

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	25 JUNE 1999
PLACE:	CANBERRA

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me a notice of motion to dismiss an application under O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and that the proceeding is otherwise frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process of the Court.  The motion is filed in respect of an application bought by Jeremy Patrick Ibarcena against sixteen respondents - the first of whom is a former occupant of the office of Commissioner for Housing for the Australian Capital Territory; the third is the Commissioner for Housing of the Australian Capital Territory, a statutory authority; the fourteenth is the Minister for Urban Services for the Australian Capital Territory and he is responsible for the administration of the Housing Assistance Act 1987 (ACT) to which I will refer. The remaining respondents, with the exception of the eighth (who is either misdescribed or non-existent) were at relevant times employees of the Australian Capital Territory Government Services.

2. The application arises out of the relationship between Mr Ibarcena and the various respondents in respect of Mr Ibarcena’s request for housing assistance in the Australian Capital Territory and his dealings with officers and agencies of the Territory in consequence of that.  He makes a large number of complaints alleging violations of his rights, misuse of public power, invasions of privacy, coercion etc. 

3. The application itself makes a variety of claims against groups of the respondents or against individual respondents.  The actual relief sought is simply to ask the Court to find every respondent “responsible for misfeasance conduct and face the consequences”.  Of itself, that of course does not disclose any claim for relief of a type of which this Court could take cognisance, although I would not regard that as being fatal as of course to the application.  It was pointed out to Mr Ibarcena when the matter was first raised in this Court at a Directions Hearing that it was questionable whether this was a proceeding in respect of which this Court’s jurisdiction was being properly invoked.  The substance of the complaints actually relates to the conduct of public administration in the Territory.  And the essence of the conduct…