Inglis v Moore - [1979] FCA 43

P l e a d i n g -

Lack

p a r t l c u l a r l t y

i n proposed

i~,~cn~!alcnt

D e c l a r a t o r y

R e l i e f

Aiiendmei~t s ~ l e k l n g

cl(?cl i i rat lon t h a t

c r i m e committed

r e f u s e d .

KATHLEEN TSOREL I N G L I S v. P.NDR.Td

JXSLJZ PlOORE, XI?YPFJ,

---.-

-- -

RAYNER	TIWAITCS , 1ilAr:LICE	BRAY,	3EYTi 0 ' 6h'T::.'N,	*S 1 ' r ; ~ k*
----

ROWLASDS .

No. G 97 o f 1977

Corarn:	S t . J c h n .	Erennan	and Davlcs JJ.
Sydney

10 May 1979

P R I N C I P A L	REGISTRY	1	A p p e a l N o .	G97 of	1977
I

GENERAL

D I V I S I O N

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THC

--p

S U P ~ I U

COURT OF

TIIZ AUSTRALIAN

CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN

: KATHLEEN

I S O B E L

I N G L I S

A p p e l l a n t (Plaintiff)

R e s p o n d c n t s ( D e f e n d a n t s )

O R D E R

JUDGES MAKIKG ORDER

St.John, B r e n n a n and Davles JJ.

DATE

O F ORDER

10th May

1 9 7 9 .

WHERE MADE

Sydney.

TIIE COURT ORDERS THAT :

1. T h e appeal be dlsrnissed.

T h e appe l l an t pay

t o t h e respondents

their costs 01

t h e appeal t o he taxed.

I N THE FCDElWL COUHT OF AUSTiiAL1.A )

)

P R i K JP7iL REGISTRY	)	No.	G 97 of	1977
1

GENERAL

D I V I S I O I U '

)

BETia1EEX:	T(Ai'H1XEN ISO3!7L. 1P:CLIS
--

Appel lan t

( P l a l n t l i f )

Respondrnts

(Dcfcndants )

CORAI.1:	S t . Jo'm , Brvnnan and Davies JJ.
DATE :
--	10 Ibiay 1979

T h i s i s an appc"a1 f i m i.hc 0rdc3:-

of Sn:lthcr:.

J. s ~ t t l n g

a s

a Judge of t h e S~premc

Court

th= Aust - ra l lan c ,xp i t a l

T e r r l t w y ,

t h e u l t l m a t c

e f f e c t of

;~hlch

ord,:r

was

t o d ~ c l n i s s

an apj111 c d t l o n f o r ;lzi.lcncLr~.-llt c f ,3

writ

surmnc;ns FUy

t!ir

a d d l t ~

011

of more d c f a l d a n t s sl!d

t n p zncndm-nt

. ~ f

S+ at c";c,:n';

c l a l ~ n

t h e r;ubsti.l-ution oC

new

s t a t ~ l r . c n t of

cl.;.,:r!

f o r t h a t one Ctltn on t h e f j l e .

Ths staternr:nt

of cla31n

soucjht. t o be

: iub-, t l t .ut t~d ha;

l r , : :,

than a

slxt-11 attcxpl

t o f orntu1,ll.c

';),c

c s u s r of

a c t ] on

u!..>n

~ h l r 1 1

t h e

appt?ll zrlt

souc~ht

t o r e l y ,

she appea l ] rig

i n p^~- son

b c f o r e

t h e

Supreme

Cour t

and

l l ke lv l se b e f o r e

t h i s Cour t

appea l .

The \vhole

t h e ext l -am-dlnary h l s t o r y of

t h l s p l e a d l n g

need

n o t b?

e x h a n s t i v ~ l y

d e a l t w i t h

b u t

i k i s n e c e s s a r y

t o r ecoun t

i t s imnedla to p r i o r h l s t o r y i n t h e IIlqh

Cour t

o f

I i ~ l s t r a l l a

where

s t a t c m c n t

c l a l m a g a l n s t

t h e

sane

de fendan t s

a s i n t h e Suprcme Cour t

a c t l o n was

h e l d by

Mason J.

t o be

vexatious

and o p p r e s s i v e up3n

t h e grounds

t h a t

p r o c c e d ~ n g s

between

t h e same

p a r t l e s had a l r e a d y

been

l n s t l t u t c d i n t n e Supreme C c u r t o f

t h e Australian

C a p i t a l Territory

and any

r e l i e f

t o vzhlch

she lvas e n t i t l e d

i n t h e Blgh Cour t was available i n t h e Scprcnc Cour t .

That

f i n d i n g was

u n d ~ n t u r b e d

a p p s a l t o t h e f u l l High

Court

where

t h e a p p e l l a n t

a l s o appeared

i n person .

The

r e a s r ~ r ? ~

f o r judgnsnt iJ1Y'i.n

by Mason J. rccounta?d dn unde r t zk lng

o f f e r e d by

counse l

f o r

t h e de fcndzn t s

i n t h o s e proceedings

which

t h e

l e a r n s d Judgc.

cxpresscc? i n t h e s c t e r m s :

"The de fcn5an t s 111 t h i s action havc undel-t2lrr.n

t h a t t h e y w i l l rrake no oh]~'ctlon

t o sl~cl-1

amc-nd-

mcnts b ~ l n g

made

i n t h e

Sup~c:r~e Cour t

act- lon a s

would

cn.i:);e

t l l c p l a l n t l f f

ti, seek i n khc sc

p r o c e c d ~ n , j s

t i ~ c

:-cl 112f

v,hic!l

s110 s c e k s i n t ? ~

Coul t , C:~~->II 1.0

Cilc

cxl ;cnt

o h ? l c n c l l n q a s t o p,31-1114.-'.5,

p rov ided tl;at

t h e parties

a r ? n?crlssr:ry

and ~ ~ ~ o ~ r ? r _ . r

p a l t i e s ?nd

t h a t

a,;l.;:n~nents s ~ u i ; h t

'C..-, be lnaclc

cor!fo:-IX t-o tl;p rec~.:lrl?~f:nt=,

QC prope:-

pI.?aci I nq a n d

t h e Rl~l.?:, of

C o u ~ '

Evcn

s o 3 . t

1s f o r t i x

Sup]-i:n;c. C s u r t

t o d c c l z c whei.hcr

f1.:rtll~1- amt.:n$-

ments t o tile pl( 'z2li1qs i n t!l.at

Cou;:t

shou ld now bs

mad,?.'

( i b ~ d .

a t p.

5 9 2 )

t h a t c c r t a ~ n

act . lons o f t h ~

dc- , f -~~cl ,>nts

c o n , c t . l t u r ~ d con-

a l t e y - n a t i v e l y ci.nti,.iry

t o t h e

cnvlil,lon lair

were

souql~l:.

The

a p p e l l a n t submitted

b e f o r e

t?ie l e a r n e d Supreme

C o u r t

J u d g e

a n d t h l s C o u r t

t h a t the

e f f c c t

o f

t h e u n d e r t a k i n g

w a s ,

i n s u b s t a n c e ,

t h a t n o o b j e c t i o n c o u l d bc

t a k e n t o

s u c h claims f o r d e c l a r a t o r y r c l l p f

and

t h a t t h e f u l l Hlgh

C o u r t

h a d ,

a t l eas t

i m p l l c i k l y ,

a ~ ~ p r o v e d

s u c h

c l a l m s

b o m g

i n c l u d e d .

t o t h o s c

s u b m i s s i o n s ,

is a p p a r e n t

f rom t h e

transcript

a rgument b e f o r e t h e High

C o u r t t h a t a t l e a s t

Jacobs

e x p r e s s e d

c o n c e r n

t h a t

s u c h

d c c l a r a t o r y

o r d e r

c o u l d be

made.

The

t r a n s c r i p t a t t r l b n t e s t o J a c o b s J . ,

when

s p e a k l n g a b a u t

s u c h d n

o r d e r ,

t h e

f o l l o w i n y w s r c k :

" I t would	undcrmlnc?	t h e who le	s y s t e m o f	B r l t . ~ . s h
j u s t ] ce. "

R e v e r t i n g t o t l l e undertaking,

i t i s c l c a r t h a t l:ason

d l d n o t r e g a r d

t h e undertaking

a s o n e whlch

p r e c l u d e d

t h e t a k i n g o f

j u r l s d l c t l o n a l

o r o t h e r p o l n t s .

T h a t

l e a r n e d

J u d g c

s a l d t h l s i n h l s r e a s o n s

f o r

judyment:

" P u t t l n g asldc

t h e

l n h e r e n t

d ? f l c ~ . c n c l e s

i n h c r

c l a i m t o r e l l c . f ,

d c r i c ~

e n c i ec

~;?!lch h c u l d

\:~rl;.

a g a l n s t hcr

c a s e as much

i n t h i s C o u r t as i n t he

Suprel ie C o b ~ - t , t h e r e 1s

r c a s o n why

t l ~ s

' p i a i n t l f f

c o u l d n o t ,

or c a n n o t ,

s e e k r e l i e f by \;ay

o f

declaration

a n d in j : !nc t lcz

i n a d d l t i o n t o , or

i n

s u b s i : l t ~ t l o n 0 1 ,

dam3qc.s

I n rhe

a c t ~ s n

i n i h e

Sulrcrne

C o u r t .

Any

d l f f l c u l t y b;!'.:z11

t h ~ ?

! : l a l~~ i -~ : l :

may

c n c o u i t c r

i n s e c u r l ny

s l > : i ; - c ~ ~ r ~ l

a t e

arn?ric!~r-.:l L s

t o t h e p r o c r c d l n q s

t b c Sl;p':circ

Codrt-h 11111 s t c ~ ,

n o t

f r o x

] ; ~ r l c ~ d l c C : o l ~ a l

1 11;l

a t l c . n s ,

h u t f r ~ m

t h n r>lannc

i n which

Chc

p!.; l lntlff

h? s

r i ~ c s e n t a d h,-]- c a z c

t o d a t e

a n d

f r o m

t h e

i r i s u f f l c l e n c y

o f

t h c

117;lt tcrs up?n

v ~ t ~ i c h

s h c re l ics	t o g r o u n d	t h e	r c l l c f	whlch	s l lc	c l a l m s . "
( i b l d . )

T h i s l a t t e r

s t a t e m e n t l n d l c a t c s q u i t e c l c a r i y t

Mason J.

was n o t dcc: lding

wIv.th-r

t h c d e c l a r a t ~ o n s

r r - fc r l -cd

t o 1,erc

w l t h l n

t h e

j u r l sdi c t l o n of

t h e

,Sup~(:r+ C o u r t .

A t t h e conc lus ion

t h e h e a r i n g b e f o r e

t h e Supreme

Cour r ,

t h e

l e a r n e d Judge

made

t h e

f o l l o w i n g

o r d e r :

"The

rnotlon

h e r e i n

s t a n d s dismissed

u n l e s s

b o f o r c

t h e

1 5 t h J anua ry

1979 t h e plaintiff

d e l i v e r t o t h s

crown

s o l i c i t o r a n zxcnded

s t a t c r w n t

c l a in?

s i g n e d by

co!insel

t h c Role

( s l c . ) of

h a r l - i s t ~ z s

and

s o l i c i t o r s of

t h e A.C.T.

i n a c t i v e ]>ract.lcc iind

an amended w r l t of surr:nons

h ~ i - f l n

and

i s f u r t h e r

o rde red

t h a t t h e q u e s t l o n

c o s t s o f

t h e motion

be	r e s e r v e d . ''

Thc

l e a r n e d Supren~e Cour t

Judge

d i d n o t

g l v e

any

r e a s o n s

f o r

judgment.

However, cxainination o f t h e transcript of a?-c~Qment

b e f o r e

t h a t Judge

i n d l c a t c s q u i t e c l e a r l y \;hat

i s s u e s he

had

t o dec ide .

F l r s t l y ,

a l t houqh

t h c proposed

s t a t e m e n t

c l a i m was

some

f o o l s c a p pagcs

i n l e n g t h ,

c o n t a l n c s

167

paragraphs and sought some

30 o r d e r s o r dec3.aration:;.

c o u n s e l who

appcarc,d i n t h e Sup?-~n:? Cour t

colirageo ? s l y

~ n f o ~ ~ i e d

the

l e a r n e d Judge

t h a t

i n i t s forin

i t

was

" ~ ~ i c - ? d a b l e "

b u t

o b j e c t e d

t o t h e

content .

p a r a ~ r a p h

15G.

s u l > r ~ ~ t t r " d ,

and I	a g r e e , t h a t paragrapll was	i n s canda lous t e r n s .	It
read:

"The s a ~ d

i n s t r n c t l c n by

Moore

r e f c ~ - - e d

t o i n

paragraph 153 a b o \ ~ ~

cloaf:

f o r t h e c o r r b p t

p r a c t i c e s of

i.;oore. "

r e f e r t o d e f c n d a n ~ s '

c o u n c c l ' s

con;age

b ~ c a n s ~ e

t h c

l a c k o f

p ~ ~ r t l c u l a r l t y

t h e p l cdd lnq

genera l - ly and

t l ~ c

l l b e r s l sprinl:] l n g of

such words a s "unla!rful l y , mallcxcu:;3 y ,

i l l c y a l l y "

i n rc.latlon

t o t h e a1 lcyc~d z c t l v j . t ~ e s

t h s dc.Yc:rld--

a n t s i n t h a t doct .~;vnt . Coi:nc;cl

f o ~

t l ic

dcfcr~clant:, tonic

0 b j ~ C ~ l 0 n

t o t h e

c la l in

f o r

d< :c l a r ,~ t lo r i s

t h a t t h e actions

t h e d2fcnd;~nts coi~zt.ltut.t:d

cr imi n a l con.r,pllac:jcs

\;h',t.i?er

against

o i t h e Crinil.:; Ai:'i

1 3 J . 1 o r c o n t r a r y t o t h e

cornmon

law.

Ile

sub-n i t t ed t h a t such d e c l a r a t i o n s were

o u t s i d e t h e arnbit

d e c l a r a t o r y

r e l l e f .

With

t h i s sub-

mi s s ion

w h o l c l ~ c a r t c d l y ag ree .

The most r e c c n t authority on t h c ambit of

t h e rcmcdy o f

d c c l a r a t o r y r c l l e f i s Sankov v.

Whltlam,

53 A.L.J.R.

11,

where

t h e f u l l Hlgh Cour t h e l d t h a t it was

p r o p e r

t o

e n t c r t a l n an

application

f o r a

d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t a n

o f f e n c e

chargcd

i n c o m n l t t a l

p roceedings

b e f o r e

m a g l s t r a t c ,

and

d u r i n g	t h e	cu r r ency	of	t h o s e	p r o c e e d i n g s ,	w a s	an	o f f e n c e
.	.-

~ i 1 : r t l i , - w i l

l ; ~

i h ~

i d ~ . G i i i l ~ s A . C . J.

o u c l i n ~ d

t h e

i c a d i ng

au tho r -

l t l e s on

t h e

amLlt

o r

d e c l a r a t o r y

r c l i e f

w l thou t

d l s app rov lnq

any of

t h e i n s t a n c e s i n whlch

such

an a p p l i c a t i o n \\?a; c.ntr?r-

tainc?d.

E x a m n a t l o n

t h o s e

a u t h o r l t l e s clocs

n o t

r e v e a l

s i n g l e I n s t a n c c i n which,

i n c ~ v l l

p rocecd in~qs , t h c

d e c l a r a t l s n sought h a s b?cn

one

t h a t c e r t a l n a c t l o n s of

the

defc+ndantr; constituted

c r lme a f t e r flndi.ng

f a c t s i n t h o s e

procccdings .

Those

c a s e s i n whlch

the

c r i l n l n a l lax:

h a s bccn

t h e s u b j e c t of

declaration

a r c t h o s e i n whi-ch

t h c r c \:as

c o n t c s t a:

t o t h e f a c t s t o b?

c!>nsi clcred.

I n Munni ch

v .

GodsCr,r!a? Rura l Ill ct:-l<::;

Ccmnri l ,

(l'f5e) l W.L.R.

427

(a c a s e

quoted without

dlsappro.:al

Gibby

A . C . J . )

t h e v a l l d l t y of

n o t i c e

c l e l ~ v - . r c d

i n pxrp0rtc.d pursuance

p l a n n l n g

legl.r.!atlon

was

h e l d t o Le

t h e p r o p e r

s u b - ~ e c t of

an app1.i-

c a t i o n f o r a

d c c l a r a t o r y

ordc?- cvcn

thouqh

c r ~ m l n a l

p ~ u c c e d l n g s

1:porl

a n o t l c c i n t h c saxe

form had

r c s u l t c d i n

c c n v l c t l o n

U J ~ C ) ~

il p l e a of gu1lt.y.

Thcr-cin. Lord Dennlng M-I?.

approved tl::,

fo l lo , : lng

s t a t e ~ , l - n t of

Lo-d D?vl ln 1.n =

Corm; 1 1 1 7

v .

1)lrr.cto:

oi Pl11>l I c P: c ~ ~ r c l l t - ,

(::)c

( l T ' b 3 ) A . C .

260

\,.;-~:~re

111s

-- -- - -- -

Lordsh ip

s a i d t h l s :

"It i s s b s o l u t c l y n e c e s s a r y

t h a t

i s s u e s of

f a c t

t h a t a r e s u b s t a n t ~ a l l y

t h c

same

s h o u l d ,

whencver

p r a c t i c a b l e ,

t r l e d by

t h c same

t r i b u n a l

and

a t t h c s a z e t~rne . . . .

i<o system o f

111stlce

can

guarantee

t h a t e v e r y

~udqrnent i s r l q h t

b u t

can and

shou ld do i ts b e s t

t o e n s u r c t h a t tllc\re

a r e no

c o n f l l c t l n g

judg~ncnts i n t h c

same

m a t t e r s . "

Salmon

L.J .

emphasized

t h a t t h e v a l i d l t y o f

t h e enrol-cemcnt

n o t i c e was

a p u r e p o l n t of

law and

t h a t no r c a l q u c ~ t l o n

f a c t a r o s e

o r c o u l d have

a r i s e 7

i n t h e p rocccd lngs

b e f o r e

t h e m a g i s t r a t e s .

H i s Lordsh lp

wsnt

on:

"That t o my

rnlnd i s a most impor tan t clr-cllmst-.anre.

because

i t makes

wholl),

l r r app l l cdb lc i n t h e pr-eesent

c a s c t h a t passagp

I n t h c

sp+ech o f

Lord

D2vl ln i n

C o n n e l l y ' s

c a s e

t o whlch

t h e X a s t e r

o< lZo1.l~ h a s

r e f e r r e d

and

w l t h e v e r y word

whlch

r e s p e c t -

f u l l y

ag ree . ''

Whether

l n d l c t a b l e o f fe r ices have

b<?en c o m l t t c d I S

t h e

con-

c e r n o f

t h e

c r l rn lna l

c o u r t s and

a r e f o r

t r l i l t h e r e .

Thmre,

t h e accused h a s c e r t a l n r l g h t s .

The

l l t l g a n t s a r e t h e

Crown

and t h e accusccl.

There

i? no p r l v a t e r l g i ~ t

o r

p r i v a t e l c g a l i n t e r e s t i n convlct ;on

o r a c q s l t t a l

otl-.cr

tb;n

t h a t of t h e accused recoqnlzed by law.

The whole emp\as;s

i n t h e c r imlna l

~ u r l s d ~ c t l o n

is one of public concc.rn.

Even i f I were \:rang a s CO 1.111ethcr 01

n o t such an ap;;llc;-

t i o n would

bc I r l t h l n

thc

anib~

dec la ra tu l -y

r e l ~ c C ,

a n

conf l r k n t t h a t a

Cour t wou1.d

nevcr

e x e r c i s e

i ts dl scrnt-.ion

i n f avndr of

y r d n t l n g such rc.1

l c f .

What,

I n c-lffcct, wo,.~ld

happr:"

l f such an ap]Alc .a t lo r~

w e r i ,

al1~11c:ci ho

p~c;c:cc:i

would

t h a t a defc.nciarit

l r i c i v l l pr~c:.::cdlr~ys

;

b-.

fo-nd t o

have

c o ~ m i t t e d

c r l m e w i t h c u t

h ~ i v l n g

t h e

v a r i o u s

?.dvant-ages

which a r e affordcc1 hlm i n a c r i r i n a l t r l a l .

To mentlon

sone o f

t h o s e advantages t h c r e 1 s t h e onus of

proof

whlch

w ~ u l d

n o t be

s o stringent

i n c l v i l PI-oceedlngs , t h e co:n-

p e l l a b i l l C y of

witnesses

would be

d i f f r r e n t , no com-n~tta!.

proceedings

wsuld

a v a l l a b l c t o test

t h e s t r c n g t l l o f

the

c a s e

ag ; l ins t

htm

and

rrli:t;iin

p ~ - o c e d i ~ r a l

a d ; , a - ~ : ~ ~ e s

such a s t h e ava l lab1 .1 l ty of

staternr:nt

roln {:he rloclc

would

h,? den led him.

H e

cot11d

noc

a p p l y f o r a

n o l l e p r o s e q u i .

The whole concept of a declaration t h a t a crime h a s been

committed h ~ l n g

mad?

i n clv11

p roc . ced~ngs i s

a b h o r r e n t .

I nc luded l n t h e app;.al

book

( p r e p a r e d find f i l c d hy

t h e

a p p e l l a n t ) 1s t h e transcript

h c r appea l fro[-I l.:ason

t o t h e f u l l High Cour t .

~n 'Lcrckanqe

bctrueen Carr;lck C. J.

and t h c t h e d e c l a r a t i o n s r e f e r r e d t o made.

a p p e l l a n t

r e v e a l e d

t h c

a p p ? l l a n t ' S

i n t c r c s t

i n !la-" l n g

Thzl.

l n t e r + s t \.ras

t o

p l a c e t h e Attorney-General

i n a bo:;itlon

t%,l~crc

h e r:ould

f o r c e d t o p r o s e c u t e

t h e

dcfcndcnt:;.

Ifad

t h c poznt

b ~ c n

takvn

Cliat such a moCivc

alnountcrl t o 211 abuse of t h e p r o c c s s

t h e Suprcmc Caul-t b e f o r e S!n;tlln=rs

1 r~oul t i

have

d l s n n s s c d

the

appca l

t h a t ground.

The

d p p c l l d n t ' s

sta'Lc:~r;cnt t o t h e C11:c.f

J u s t i c e

scl-vcs t o

c m p h a s l ~ c

the?

serious

c o n s q u c n c s s o f

d e c ~ d l n q

1:liat

s u c h

c leclara t lcnc, a r e \:I	t h l n t l ic	z17b1t	of	C ~ V ~ J	l ~ ' D l ( \ ~ I r c l a i - . l l i~~ ; -y
r e l i c f .

Further

argurna- r t s \~e,-e

p u t o n bchr~lf of

t hc dcfendant : ,

t o

Srnithers J. but it is unnc3ces:;ary t o c o m c n t up011 than.

I n so saying, I

d o not w l s b t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e y had

n o	s u b s t a n c e .

wou ld

c l j s r l i i s s

t11e appeal

w i t h cost:s.

I 1 ccj.1.i Cy +h,

t 1 . n ~

S enci the .<-.&CL-,

p r r c r d ~ r g ! - a y t , ? nre a t r u ? c ~ p y o f l h e

Ge~..~.>ns

f:,r ,T:.Ll.-qe:-.i.

h l ; - ? c ? ~ l

o f his -c811011il

l .

j c l i ~ ,

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY	)	Appeal N o .	G97 o f 1977
1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE ZUDGE O F TiIE

SUPREl.% COLXT OF THE ALlSTR4LIAN =TAL

TERRITORY

BE77'7EEN : KATIILEEN ISOEEL IPJGLIS

A p p e l l a n t ( P l a 1 n t i f f )

Respondents (De f e n d a n k

CONLX : ST. J O H N , BRENNAN A!?D

DAVIES JJ.

t h e \C&

day o f !:ay

1979.

BRENNAN AND DAVIES JJ.:

T h i s

i s

a p p e a l

from

a n o r d c r made

S m ~ t h e r s G .

s i t t i n g as

Judge

o f

t h e Supreme

Cour t o f

t h e A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l T e r r l t o r y .

a p p l ~ c a t ~ o n

was made t o him by

Mrs.

I n g l l s ,

t h e ~ppeliant, who

i s t h e p l a i n t i f f

s u i n q t h e

p r e s e n t

r e sponden t s

i n an

a c t i o n i n t h a t Cour t .

She

sought

an o r d c r t h a t t h r e e

f u r t h e r d e f e n d a n t s

C.\$.

Marders

t h e Sec rc t a r y

t h e A t

torncy-Cenezdl ' S

Depa r tnen t ,

chc

Attorney-Gene-:&l,

ar.d t h e Co:r~:~oni~ealth

o f Australia -

added

a s p a r t i e s and

t h a t s h e be

a t l i b c r t y t o amend

h e r

Sta t emen t o f Claim i n accordance w i t h a

proposed

S ta t emen t

o f

C l a i m which

s h e

produced.

H e r a p p l i c a t i o n

w a s

r e f u s e d ,

and

t h e r e l e v a n t p a r t of

t h e s e a l e d copy

o f

h i s Honour's

o r d e r r eads :

" t h a t

the

motion

h e r e i n

s t a n d

d i s m i s s e d

u n l e s s

b e f o r e

t h e

1 5 t h day

o f

J anua ry ,

1978 t h e p l a i n t i f f

d e l i v e r e d

t o t h e Crown

S o l i c i t o r an

amended

s t a t e n e n t o f

c l a i m

s i g n e d by

c o u n s e l on

t h e Role

( s i c ) o f

Barristers

and

S o l l c l t o r s o f

t h e A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l

T e r r l t o r v i n a c t l v e u r a c t l c e

and

~ ~

a n

amended w r l t of summons hercyn ANDIT I S

FURTIiEH

O R D E E D

t h d t

t h e q u e s t l o n o f

c o s t s

t h e motlon be

r e s e r v e d .

A s

i s

ag reed

t h a t no

S t a t emen t o f

C la l r . s l g n e d by

c o u n s e l was

d e l i v e r e d by

15 January

1978,

t h e e f f e c t o f

t h e o r d e r i s t h a t Mrs.

I n g l i s '

application

was

d i s a l s s e d .

She

a p p e a l s

t o t h i s Cour t .

W e shou ld

d e a l w l t h

t h e

a p p e a l

a s though

t h e o r d e r s lmply

d i smis sed

I \ l r s .

I n g l i s '

a p p l i c a t i o n .

The

purpose

o f

t h e c o n d l t ~ o n

a s t o cour.sel

s i g n l n g t h e p l e a d i n g

may

c l e a r l y p e r c e i v e d ,

b u t w e

shou ld wi sh

t o c o n s i d e r

f u r t h e r

t h e p r o p r i e t y

o f

c o n d i t i o n

exp res sed

i n t h e

t e r n s

o f

t h e o r d e r

i f

any th lng

t u r n e d upon i t .

But no th ing does .

The institution of

t h e a p p a a l

and

t h e p r o v i s i o n

o f

s e c u r l t y

f o r c o s t s

d i d

n o t e f f e c t a

s t a y o f

h l s Honour 's

o r d e r

(see s.29

F e d e r a l Cour t

oi- A u s t r a l i a P.ct

1076

and

0.70

r . 1 2 ( 1 )

o f

t h e High

Court

Rules ) .

The

a p p l l c a t i o r made

t o :;]nithers

had i t s

o r i g l n i n an ac:tlon

whlch !.:rs.

11:crlls h a c l i n s t l t u z e d i n

t h e t!lgh

Court

o f

A u s t r a l i a .

I n

t h a t a c t i o n ,

whlch

was

proceed ing

c o n c u r r e n t l y

w i t h

t h e a c t i o n i n t h e Supreme

Cour t ,

M r s .

I n g l i s sued some

t h e p r e s e n t

r e sponden t s

t o g e t h e r

w i t h

t h e

t h r e e pe r sons

whom

s h e a p p l i e d ,

u n s u c c e s s f u l l y , t o

j o i n

a s de fendan t s

i n l l c r

a c t i o n

i n t h e

Supreme

Cour t .

M r s .

I n g l l s '

High

Cour t

a c t i o n was

s t a y e d

t h e o r d e r o f Mason J.

on t h e ground t h a t t h e coixnzncexent

and

c o n t i n u a t i o n

o f

t h a t

a c t i o n was

v e x a t i o u s

and oppressiv.-

and

c o n s t i t u t e d

abuse

o f

t h e p r o c e s s

o f

t h a t Court

( s e ?

A.L.J.R.589).

a p p e a l t o t h e F u l l Cour t o f

t l lc High

Cour t was

d i smissed .

I n t h e c o u r s e

o f

t h e p roceed ings b e f o r e i!ason

appears

t h a t a n unde r t ak ing was

g iven by

t h e d e l e n d a n t s

i n t h e High

Cour t

a c t i o n .

M r s .

I n g l i s

(who

appea r s

i n

pe r son

t o conduc t

h e r l i t i g a t i o n )

conce ives

h e r

ap? ; ica t l sn

t o j o i n

t h e proposed

de fendan t s

and t o see]; t h e pronosed

amended

r e l i e f

i n t h e Supreme Cour t t o f o l l o w upon,

and

t o ca l l f o r t h e honour ing o f , t h e undertaking.

When

b!asoc

gave h i s r ea sons

f o r s t a y i n g t h e High

Cour t

a c t i o n ,

r e f e r r e d

t o t h e

under tak ing :

"The

de fendan t s

i n t h l s a c t i o n have

undcrtai:en

t h a t t h e y w i l l nake

no ob jec t io r l t o such

amendments b e i n g made

1n t h e Suprcne Cour t

a c t i o n

a s would

e n a b l e the p l < l i n t i f f t o so-&

i n t h o s e p roceed ings

the

r e l i e f 7,~hich

s h e

s e e k s i n t h i s Cour t ,

evcn t o t h e cxteniz

o f

amending

a s t o p a r t l c s ,

p rov ldcd

t h d t t h e

p a r t i e s

a r e n e c e s s a r y

and

p r o p e r

p a r t i c s

ar id

t h a t

d ~ a n d m + n t s

souqh t :o bc m;!<-

cc~ntorm

t o

t h e ~ C ~ U ~ ~ ~ ! , . C : I I ; . L

:jro3i>r pie<?dl.n\; anL; t h c

Ruler, ~f

Cour t .

Ever:

?,o lt i s Ior t h c Supx+;r,;e

Court to declcle vhe t!?er

T u r t h c r al~~c!~c!~,~en';s

t o

t h e pleadings 111 t h a t Court sh3ul cl no:< be r.ade."

I n t h e c o u r s e of

t i m e ,

M r s .

I n g l l s made

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

t o Sml the r s J.

She submi t s

t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n would,

i f g r a n t e d ,

t r a n s l a t e

i n t o t h e Supreme

Cour t

a c t i o n t h e

a l l e g a t i o n s and

c l a i m s

f o r r e l i e f

which

s h e made

i n t h e

High

Cour t a c t i o n .

It shou ld n o t b e t hough t

t h a t t h e

High Cour t

approved

t h e form o f h e r a l l e g a t i o n s as

sufficient.

Mason J. s a i d :

" P u t t i n g

a s l d e

t h e

i n h e r e n t

d e f i c i e n c i e s

i n

h e r c l a i m t o r e l i e f ,

d e f i c i e n c i e s whlch

would

work a g a i n s t h e r case as much

t h i s Cour t as

i n t h e Supreme Cour t ,

t h e r e i s no

r e a s o n why

t h e p l a i n t i f f

cou ld n o t ,

o r canno t ,

s e e k r e l i e f

way

o f

d e c l a r a t i o n and

injunction

i n a d d i t i o n

t o ,

i n s u b s t i t u t i o n o f ,

damaqes

i n t h e a c t l o n

i n t h e Supreme Cour t .

Any

d l f f l c u l t y which t h e

p l a i n t i f f

may

encoun te r

i n s e c u r i n g

a p p r o p r i a t e

amendments

t o t h e proceedings

i n t h e Sapreme

Cour t w l l i s t e m ,

n o t

from

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

l i m i t z t l o n s ,

b u t

from t h e manner

i n which

t h e

p l a i n t i f f

h a s

p r e s e n t e d

h e r

c a s e t o ? a t e

and

from

t h e

i n s u E f ~ c l e n c y

t h e n a t t e r s upon which

s h e

r e l i e s t o ground t h e r e l i e f whlch

s h e c l a ims .

It was,

o f c o u r s e ,

f o r h e r t o f r a ~ e

t h e a r e n h e n t s which

s h e wished

t o make

t o h e r S t a t e n c n t o f

C l a i m ,

and

t o mzke

h e r a p p l l c a t l o n i n whatever

terns

s h e deemed

a p p r o p r i ~ t e ;

b u t it was

f o r Srs~ i thers

t o d e c i d e whether

t h e p a r t l e s

whom

s h e sough t

t o j o i n

were

n e c e s s a r y

and propt?r p a r t i e s ,

and whether t h e amendments which s h e sough t t o make t7-

r _ r e

amendments which	it was	p r o p e r f o r t h e Cour t o r a	judge
t o a l l cw .

T h e

a d d l t i o n of

p a r t l c s

was

~ n t c n d e d

t o LP

fol lowed by

t h c clel i v c r y o f

p ropascd

arnrndecl

S tatcr , ;snt

o f

Claim,

c l a lming

r e l i e f

.lg?ilnst

a13

d e f e n d a n t s ,

b u t

t h e p l e a d l n g

( a s w e

s h a l l c a l l

it) ought

n o t b e

a l lowed

t o s t a n d ,

t h e r e would

b e

no p o i n t

i n j o i n i n g

new

p a r t i e s .

The

p l e a d l n g ,

which

r u n s

f o r

4 7

pages ,

c o n t a i n s

f a r r a g o

o f

a l l e g a t i o n s and c l a i m s

f o r r e l i e f which

are

s o confused

and

con fus ing

t h a t

i t would

b e

c l e a r l y o p p r e s s i v e

t o

r e q u i r e

t h e d e f e n d a n t s ,

p r e s e n t

and

proposed,

t o p l e a d

t o

t h e n .

The

p l e a d l n g commences

a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e

d~fe i7 :L~i l lL~

o L ~ ~ Y

ihdu tilt: Cul~u[luriweai~h

o f

k u s c r a i i a

"are

pe r sons

b e i n g

sued on

b e h a l f

o f

t h e Commonwealth

o f

A u s t r a l l a e a c h i n h i s o r h e r o f f l c l a l c a p a c i t y " .

Mrs.

I n g l l s

t o l d

t h a t t h l s was

l n t e c d c d

t o s e c u r e t h e r e s u i t

t h a t t h e s e de fendan t s would n o t have

t o pay

t h e damages

c la imed,

and

t h e Comonweal th o f

A u s t r a l i a would havc

t c

pay

them.

It rimy

t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n i s i n t e n d e d

merely

t o l a y

t h e

founda t ion

f o r a

c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e

Comonweal th o f

Austra1j.a

t h a t it i s v i c a r i o u s l y

l l a b l e

fo r

t h e t o r t i o u s

a c t s o f

t h e o t h c r d e f e n d a n t s ,

b u t

t h a t

i n t e n t i o n does

n o t appea r

c l e a r l y

from

t h e pleading.

Indeed,

t h e o n l y c l a i m f o r darnagcs

i s

for a

consp i r acy

t o which

two

o f

t h e de fendan t s sved

"on b e h a l f

t h e

Comnonwealth

A u s t r a l l a "

are n o t

a l l e g e d t o be

p a r t i e s .

The

p l e a d i n g

t h c n

r e f e r s

t o Mrs.

I n g l i s '

t r a n s f e r

fro111 one p u b l i c

s e r v i c e

p o s l t i o n

t o a n o t h e r

i n

t h e

r ; ;r l lzn~cnLsry L~br i : ry a t P a r l ~ a ~ e n t

House,

Canberra.

I t appe.lrs

t h a t

t h a t t r a n s f e r i s a

1,1attcr o f

compla in t

a g a i n s t t h e defendant A.L.

Koore t h c Pcrmanent Ilcad o f t h e

Department

o f

t h e Pa r l . i anen ta ry

L i b r a r y ,

t h e proposed

de fendan t C.W.

Harder;

t h e S e c r e t a r y o f

t h e At torney-

G e n e r a l ' s

Department,

t h e de fendan t M.R.

Thwai tes

t h e

A u s t r a l i a n

P a r l i a m e n t a r y

L i b r a r i a n ,

t h e

de fendan t

Bray

t h e L i b r a r y Administrative

O f f l c e r ,

t h e

de fendan t B.

O 'Brien

c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n t i n t h e L i b r a r y ,

t h e de fendan t

Rowlands

t h e s e c r e t a r y and

t y p i s t e of

M r .

Moore,

and t h e At torney-General .

Seven conspiracies

among

some

two

o r more

t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s

a r e a l l e q e d ,

o n l y t h e l a s t o f which

i s t o be

found i n t h e e x i s t i n g

S t a t emen t o f

Claim.

I t i s o n l y i n r e s p e c t of

t h e l a s t

consp i r acy

t h a t damages

a r e c la imed i n t h e proposed

S ta t emen t

o f

CLalm.

The

proposed

p l e a d i n g seek;

o n l y

d e c l a r a t i o n s

i n r e s p e c t

o f

t h e

f i r s t s i x c o n s p i r a c i e s

which

t h e p l e a d i n g would,

i f a l lowed,

introduce

i n t o t h e

Supreme Cour t

a c t i o n .

Preceding

t h e a l l e g a t ~ o n s

o f

t h e

f i rs t s i x conspiracies,	pa rag raph	1 7 appea r s	i n t h e
p l ead ing :

"17.	I,ioore, Hardcrs , Thwai tes dnd Bray have used

t h e provisions

o f

t h e Act n h l c h

r e q u i r e t h e

P l a i n t i f f

t o obey

t h e i n s t r u c t l o n s

o f :.loore

and

Thwal tes

t o wrongfu l ly

r e q u l r c

and

i n t i m i d a t e

t h e P l a l n t l f f

l n t o accepting

under

d u r a s s

t h e

un lawful

i n s t r u c t l o n s

Moore

f o r t h e purposc o f

i n j u r i n g t h c

P l a i n t i f f w l t h o u t

j u s t

cause

o r excuse

and

un lawfu l ly

i n j u r i n g t h e P l a l ~ ~ t l f f

l n h e r

employment

i n o r d e r t o f u r t i ~ c r

each o:

t h e

s i x c o n s p ~ r a c i e s

rcspect lve1.y

r e f e r r e d t o

below

a s

i o i l o v s :

(1) i n parzgraphs

10-45

( 2 )	"	46-51
( 3 )	"	52-80

8 1 61-06

( 4 )

(5 )

87-127

(6)

128-152

Apar t from maklng ~ t s

c o n t r i b u t i o n

t o

t h e

p e j o r a t i v e

t o n e

o f

t h e p l e a d i n g ,

t h l s pa rag raph

c o n t r i b u t e s

n o t h i n g

t o an

unde r s t and ing o f

any

f a c t s upon which

c l a l m f o r rel ief

i s based .

What Moore, Harders , Thwal tes and Bray may have

done

" to wrongfu l ly

r e q u i r e

and

I n t i m i d a t e

t h e p l a i n t i f f "

d o ~ a

n o t appea r ,

and no c l a i m f o r rel ief

i s founded on

conduc t

s o d e s c r i b e d .

One

t h e n gces t o t h e - I lcgzt ;ons

c o n s p i r a ~ y ,

t h e p l e a d i n g o f

which

ough t t o b e p r e c i s e

(McKernan v.

P r a s e r (1931) 46 C.L.R.343

a t p.364).

The f i rs t of

t h e

c o n s p i r a c i e s

may

h e

t a k e n

a s i l l u s t r a t i v e o f

t h e n a t u r e

o f

t h e p l e a d i n g ,

though

zhe

deficiencies

o f

t h e v a r i o u s

p a r t s

o f

t h e p l e a d l n g

appea r

f u l l y o n l y by

examining

each

paragraph

i n t h e c o n t e x t o f

t n e e n t i r e p l ead ing .

Paragral:;l

l8	r e a d s :

"18.

t h e 26th day of Oztobcr , 1973 :loore,

Ba rde r s

and

T h w a ~ t c s wrong iu l ly

and

m a l i c i o u s l y

comk~ined and

c o n s c l r e d

anongs t

themse lves

t o e f f e c t t h e t r a n s f e r o f

t h e

P l a l n t i f f

from h e r Fo rne r O f f i c e

i l l e q a l

means

i n t h e terns o f

a minute w r l t t e c by

Moore

t o t h c P l a ~ n t z f f

d a t e d

t h e

26 th

October ,

1973,

s e t o u t i n paraqraph

25 beloir,

f o r t h e purpose

o f

i n j u r l n g t h e P l a l n t i f l

w l t h o u t

j u s t

cause o r excuse

and

f o r t h e

purpose

o f

un l awfu l lg

i n l u r l n g

t h e P l a l n t i f f

i n h e r employment by t h e Commonwealth.

The means

by whlch i t had a l l e g e d l y bean

ag reed t o e f f e c t

M r s . I n g l i s l

t r a n s f c ~

from on2 p o s ~ t i c n

t o a n o t h 9 r :wrc

-'id

t o b e

i l l e g a l ,

b u t

t h e p l c ~ d l n g

does no:

s t a t e i n what

t h e

1 l l e g a l l t y

c o n s i s t e d .

The

a l l e g e d o v e r t

a c t s o f

t h i s c o n s p i r a c y

are

i n t r o d u c e d by

paragraph

20:

"20.

I n pursuance

and

i n f u r t h e r a n c e

o f

t h e

s a i d conspiracy Noore,

I l a rders and Thwalces

d i d t h e o v e r t a c t s se t o u t below

a t

paragraphs 21 t o 42 inclusive.

The P1aintif .F

r e p e a t s

t h e f a c t s and

m a t t e r s

con ta ined

i n

t h e paragraphs

10- to

4 2 inclusive o f this

S ta t emen t

o f

Clalm.

The

a l l e g a t i o n s which

f o l l o w are

l i b e r a l l y sprinkled

witin

assertions

t h a t a c t i o n s were

done o r o m l t t e d

" i l l e g n l l y "

" impropcr ly"

o r "deliberately",

y e t t h e p l e a d l n g does

n o t

intelligibly

s t a t e t h e m a t t e r s which

c o n s t i t u t e ~ 1 - l e g a l i t y

and

i m p r o p r l c t y

and

does

n o t r e v e a l

t h e r e l e v a n c e

o f

t h e

d e l i b e r a t r o n .

The

" ~ l l e g a l

means" which =re evidently

a t t h e h e a r t o f

t h e f l r s t consp i r acy

a r e n o t i d e a t i f i d .

One o f t h e paragraphs s e t t ~ n g

o u t what

a r e s a i ~ l

t o be

o v e r t a c t s oT

t h e f i r s t consp i r acy

i s paragraph

33:

"33.

t h e 1st Novexber,

1973 a p r o t e c t i v e

i n j u n c t i v e p rocced ing No.

S.C.1028

o f

1973

was

i n s t i t u t e d i n t h c Supreme Courc o f

t h e

A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l

T e r r ~ t o r y

b e h a l f

o f

t h e P l a l n t l f f i n which !;gore

aad Thwaitcs

were

named a s de fendan t s .

The

s a i d

p rocced ing

sou?h t

o r d e r

f r o n the

S u p r e r e

Cour t

o f

t h e X u s t r a l l a n

C a p l t a l

T e r r i t o r y

f o r

l n j u n c r i o n

t o r c s t r a l n

t h e t r a n s f e r o f

t h e P l a i n t i f f

from h e r

E o r m c 2 r

O f f l z c

u n t l l

such

t lmc

a s

t h e

p r o v i s i o n s

o f

t h e Act

had

been

c a n p l i e d

w i t h by

:.loorc

with

r e s p c c t Chr re to .

The i n c t i t u t l o n o f proceedings by M r s .

I n ~ l i s

c o u l d n o t

cons t l tu t . .

an o v c r t a c t of

t he

f ~ r s t

cons;~i;-r:ccy.

The

re r ; l a ln ln j p,irar~rar;!ls b f

t h e

t i l l c g a t r o n s

whicll

a r c

sa id

t o r e l a t e t o the f i r s t consp1l:ac:y

canvilss i n t e r a l i a C-hc

c o u r s c

o f

this

l l c i g a t l o n which

Xrs .

I n g l i s

s a y s

s h e

s t a r t e d and discontinued.

These paragraphs are marked by

v e r b o s i t y

and

i r r e l e v a n c e .

The

f i rs t

c o n s p i r a c y

a l l e g a t i o n s

come t o an end i n paragraph 45:

" 4 5 .

A t a l l m a t e r i a l

t i m e s Moore

and

Thwai tes

had

a c c e s s

t o Ba rde r s w i t h

r e s p e c r

t o t h e

f a c t s

and m a t t e r s

s e t o u t i n pa rag raphs

t o 4 4 inclusive above.

The meaning o f

t h i s paragraph

i s u n c e r t a i n ,

and it co7:ld

r e l e v a n t o n l y

a s evidence.

The

a l l e g a t i o n s o f

t h e n e x t

f i v e conspiracies

show

an ernilarrassing l a c k o f

s p o c i f i c i t y ,

and t h e conFuslon

o f

t h c

p l e a d i n g

c o n t i n u e s

u ~ a b a t e d .

A f t e r

t h e

s i x c o n s p l r a c l e 5

a r e d e a l t w i t h ,

t h e

p l e a d i n g

r e f e r s t o an instruction

which

it i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e

defcndazi- i4oore gave t o M r s .

I n y l i s .

I t was

an i n s t r c c t ~ o n

" n o t t o mention

any macte r w i t h

r e s p e c t t o t h e conditions

t h e employment

o f

the P l a i n t i f f

i n h e r p r c s e n t O f f i c e o r Che

c o n d l t l o n 5 of

t h e employment

o f

t h e P l a i n t i f f

i n h e r Forr?.zr

O T f l c e

t o any

S e n a t o r o r Member

o f

t h e House

o f

R e p r e s e n t a t i v r s

o t h e r t h m t o t h e Presiding

O f f i c e r s th rounh iloore. "

The

e n s u l n g pa rag raphs ,

w l t h o u t

a l l c g a t i o n s

o f

f u r t h e r

f a c t s ,

t h c n

a s s e r t t h d t t h e instruction

"an abuse o f

t h e a d n l n l s t r a t i v e

powers

e f lloore under t h e Act"

(paragraph 154) , " u l t r a v l r c s

t h e a u t h o r i t y o f ?+:oore under

t h e Act"

(parayraph 1551,

c l o a k

f o r

t h e

c o r r u p t

p r a c t L c c s

o f

X o ~ r e "

(paragraph

1 5 6 ) ,

" u n c ~ i : . ; t - i t ~ ~ t ~ o ! l ~ ~ ~

ZIIC!

i r a ~

C?" (l~ara;r>:>>

1 5 8 ) ,

ail2

" o p c r a t c s

t o p r e v c n t

p r o p e r

survc i l l anc .~r?

ti13

A u s c r ~ l j a n

Par1lzi);ent

o f

t h e a J n u n i s t l - a i i o n o f

t h e Library"

( p ~ r ~ g r z p h

1 5 7 ) .

Paragraph

159

completcs

t h l s s e c t i o n o f

t h e p lcdding :

"159.

I t

i s a

f r a u d on

t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e A c t

1922 as amended

(Cth) and t h e C r l m e s A c t

1914 as

amended

(Cth) i f t h e P l a l n t l f f i s

under

d u t y

n o t

t o d i s c l o s e

t o any

p e r s o n

any	f a c t o r document which had c o r e t o h e r

knowledge

i n t o h e r posscs s ion

conce rn ing

any or

a l l o f

t h e n a t t c r s x i t h r e s p e c t t o

which

d e c l a r a t i o n s

a r e sough t

i n pa rag raphs

1 t o 27

i n t h e i q r i t o f surrnons h e r e i n

and

i n pa rag raohs

1 t o 27

o f

t h e p r a y e r

f o r r e l i e f

i n t h e P l a l n t l f f ' s c l a m h e r e i n below;

any

e n f o r c e d

s i l e n c e

t h e

P l a l n t i f f

c o n c c r n l n g

t h e s e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

m a t t e r s

must

a c t a s a n

encouragement

and

s h i e l d f o r t h e s a l d

conspirators

w l t h

r e s p e c t

t o t h e s i x

ronqplracies r e f e r r e d t o i n psr'grzph	l 7
above. "

These

pa rag raphs

seem

t o cor i ta in mere

t e n d e n t i o u s

argument.

I t is unnecessary

t o r e f e r t o t h e conc lud ing series

pa rag raphs

(paras .160

t o 164)whlch a r e t o he found,

i n scDe

form,

i l l

t h e e; : is t lnn

S t a t e n c n t o f

C l a l r ~ , e x c e p t t o n o t e

t h a t

t hey

add

t o t h e c o n , p l e s i t y o f

t h e plezclirig

i n c o r p o r a t ~ n g

many

o f

t h e an t eceden t

pa rag raphs

r e f e r e n c e .

How

i s a

de fendan t

d e a l w l t h a

p l e a d i n g o f

t h i s

k i n d ?

A s J ames L.J.

s a i d i n

G a r r e t t

(1378)

7 Ch.D.473

a t p.483:

"Now

n o t h i n g i s more

embar ra s s ing t o a

de fendan t

t h a n a

number

o f

stntemenCs which

!r.;?y b e i r r e l e v ~ t n t ,

and

\ ; i t h

which h e t h e r e l o r e does n o t knod what t o do."

Irrelevancies

abound

i n the plcadi-r.g,

b u t t h 2 q r a v e s t o b j e c t ~ o n

i s t h a t one

canno t

a s c e r t a i n u h n t

a r e t h e

constitutive

f a c t s o f

t h c causes

o f

a c t i o n o r grounds

o f

r e l l e f

upon which M r s . I n g l l s

would

r e l y :

t h e p l e z d ~ n y

i s n c t ~ n t e l . l i c l h l e .

And

Ja!ws

L.J.

polnte(1 o u t

( ~ b l d .

:it ~ . 4 B i )

"But

Defendant may

c l a i m e x d e b l t o j u s t i t l a e

t o have

t h e Plaintiffs'

c a s e p r e s e n t e d

i n an

l n t c l l i g i b l e form,

s o t h a t he'may

n o t b e

e m b ~ r r a s s e d

i n meet lny

it; and t h e Cour t ough t

t o be

s t r ic t even

t o s e v e r i t y i n t a k i n g c a r e

t o p r e v e n t

p l e a d l n g s

from

d c g e n e r a t i n y

l n t o

t h e o l d oppressive

pledclings o f

t h e Cour t o f

Chanccry.

I f p l e a d l n g s such as

t h i s a r c t o

b e a l lowed,

t h e gentlemen who

took

such p a l n s

i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n

o f

t h e r u l e s may

s a y ,

a s

Oli- er

Cromvlell

d i d a f t e r an

u n s u c c e s s f u l

a t t e m p t t o re form abuses ,

'The

sons o f

Zerulah

t o o h a r d f o r me.'

The d e f e c t s

i n t h e a l l e g a t l o n s

a r c compounded

some

o f

t h e c l a l m s which

fo l low.

The

a l l e g a t l o n s o f

t h e

f i r s t s l x conspiracies

do n o t found any

c l a i m f o r subs t an t lx7 f

r e l i e f ,

b u t o n l y

c l a l m s

f o r d e c l a r a t i o n s .

Fo r

example,

i n

t h e c a s e

o f

t h e

f i r s t conspiracy,

d e c l a r a t i o n s

a r c s o e g h t

t h a t t h e agrccment

o f

t h e a l l e g e 6 c o n s p i r a t o r s

" t o e f f c c t

t h e t r a n s f e r o f

t h e P l a l n t i f f ...

c o n s t i t u k e s

crim1,lal

consp i r acy i i l t h i n

t h e a n b l t o f

s .36

o f

t h e Crimes

Act

1914",

o r a l t e r n a t i v e l y

c r i m i n a l

cons ;~ i r acy a t coinnlon

law".

( W e do n o t ];now

whether

t h e r c i s ,

o r 1s

i n t e n d e d t o be ,

any

s i g n i f l c a n c c

i n t h c o m ~ s s i o n

from t h e c l a l m s oC

any

r e f c r e n c c	t o t h e a l l c g e d	" ~ l l e g a l	means"	of	e f f e c t i n g t h e
t r a n s f e r ) .

These a r e two o f t h e declarations by whlch

M r s .

I n g l l s

s e e k s

t o e s t a b l i s h

j u d l c l a l l y

t h a t t h c conduct

some

two

o r n o r e o f

t h e d c i e n d a n t s

c o n s t l t u t c s

t h e crlTe

some

a c t ? d3ac by

i n d l v l d u a l d i f c n d a n t s wcrc

i l l e g a l ,

though

s u b h t a n t l v c

i:cllef

c l a ~ n e c l . Alchoayh

i t cannot

b c

s a i d t h a t a

declaration

t h a t conduct c o n ~ ~ i i t u t e s

cr ime

w i l l neve r b e made

(Sankey v . Whitlam (1978) 53 A.L.J.R.ll

a t p.141,

t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o make

d e c l a r a t i o n s of

t h a t k ind

c a u t i o u s l y

e x e r c i s e d .

Some

o f

t h e grounds

o f

c a u t i c n

are

r e f e r r e d t o i n G o u r i c t v.

Union

o f

P o s t O f f i c e

Vorkcrs

119781 A.C.435,

where Lord Wi lbc r fo rce s a i d i n r e f e r e n c k t o

t h e c i v i l remedy

o f

an injunc+.ion t o r e s t r a i n t h e co;nmiss?.on

of cr ime ( a t p.481) :

.where

Pa r l l amnn t

ha<

( 2 s h ~ r t - in

thc

Pns+ O f f i c e

A c t 1953)

p rov ided

f o r t r i a l o f

o f f e n c e s by

i n d i c t m e n t b e f o r e

j u r y ,

it may

seem wrox?g

t h a t

t h c c o u r t s ,

a p p l y i n g

c i v i l

s t a n d a r d

o f

p r o o f ,

shou ld

i n e f f ec ' i

c o n - ~ i c t

s u b j e c t w i thou t

t h e

p r e s c r i b e d t r l a l .

What would happzn if,

a f t e r

punlshrnent

f o r contempt,

t h e same man w e r e t o b e

p r o s c c u t e d

I n a

c r l m l n a l

c o u r t ?

That

L o r d Zl~ioi?

L.C.

w a s much

o n ~ r c s s e d

t h e s e

d l f f i c u l t ~ e s

i s s h ~ 7 ~ 7

,. .

t h e d i s c u s s i o n s i n At torney-Gcncral

Cleavcr

(1811) 16 Ves.Jun. 210.

These and o t h e r exam2les vli ich ca:]

b e glill??

show

t h a t t h i s j u r i s c ? i c t i o n

though ;:roveC

u;c:ful

o c c a s i o n s

one

o f

g r e a t d e l i c a c y

dnd

i s on2

t o be

used w i t h caution."

The p l e a d i n g d c e s n o t

stlow

t h a t t i e r a k i n g o f

d e c l a r a t i o n

r e l a t i n g

t o t h e

a l l f g a t l o n s

o f

crlrce v o u l d

s c r v c

any

u s e f u l purpose ,

f o r it does n o t appea r t h a t a

d e c l a r a t i o n would

advance

o r improvc

M r s .

I n g l i s '

l e r j a l

p o s l t ~ o r ~

o r

e n t i t l e h e r t o any

l e g a l remedy.

The

c l a i c s

f o r declarations

t h a t crime was

c o r m i t t e d dppea r a t f i rs t

s i g h t t o be

v c x a t ~ o u s . I n t h e

cou r se

h e r argum?nc

b e f o r e

u s ,

M r s .

1nglj .s

avowcd

t h a t h e r motive

i n s e c k l n g t h e

d a m ~ q e s

b u t

t o s e c u r e

" t h c p r o p e r

a c t i o n t o L e

taken

a g a l n s t t h e Fcrson

r c s p o n s ~ t ~ l c "

;nd

s h e addcd t h a t " i f i t

w e r e n o t t a k e n

would b e

i n a

sounder p o s i t i o n

t o t a k e L L

13.

mysel f . "

I t seems t h a t M r s .

I n g l i s wishes

t o s e c u r e ,

i n

c i v i l p r o c e e d i n g s ,

j u d l c l a l

d e c l a r a t i o n

t h e

g u i l t o f

some

de fendan t s

i n o r d e r t o p rocu re

o r f a c i l i t a t e

p r o s e c u t i o n

o f

them

f o r t h e same

o f f e n c e

i n c r i m l n a l p roceed lngs .

But ,

a s Viscount

Di lhorne

s a i d i n G o u r l e t ' s

c a s e ,

s u p r a ,

a t p.490:-

"The

c r i m i n a l

law

i s

e n f o r c e d

i n t h e c r l m i n a l

c o u r t s by

t h e c o n v l c t l o n

hild

punishment

o f

o f f e n d e r s ,

n o t

i n t h e c i v l l c o u r t s .

The

j u r i s d i c t i o n

o f

t h e c l v i l c o u r t s

i s mainly

t o t h e

d e t e r m l n a t l o n

o f

d l s p u t e s

and

c l a l m s .

mh- . .

-I-

i i ~ t

charged- w ~ i i ~

r e s p o n s i b l i l c y

f o r

t h e d c h ~ n l s t r a t l o n

o f

t h e c r l m l n a l c o u r t s .

The

q u e s t i o n

' A r e

t h e c o u r t s

t o s t a n d l d l y by? '

might b e supposed by

some

t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e

c i v l l c o u r t s have

some

e x e c u t i v e

a u t h o r i t y

i n

r e l a t l o n t o t h e

c r l rn ina l

law.

The

l i n e be tbeen

t h e

f u n c t i o n s of

t h e executive

and

t h e j u d l c l a r y

s h o u l d

n o t

b l u r r e d . "

I n t h e p a r t i c u l a r

c l rculr ls ta~lces o f

t h l s c a s e ,

it would

abuse

t h e Suprcne C o u r t ' s

p r o c e s s

t o a l l o w Krs.

I n g l i s t o

pu r sue ,

i n

f u r t h e r a n c e

o f

h e r

d e s l g n ,

h e r

c l a l m s

f o r

declarations

a s t h e y appear i n t h e p l c a d l c g .

Althoagh

t h e

making

o f

declaration

i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y

and

t h e d l s c r c t i o n

i s u s u a l l y e x e r c l s c d a t a

l a t e r s t a y c i n p rocced jngs ,

open

t o t h c Cour t

t o t e r n n n a t e

a t an

e a r l y s t a q e proceedinqs

f o r a

d c c l a r a t l o n which

a r e c l e a r l y an

abuse

o f

i t s p roces s .

(Roesin v. At torney-General 34 T.L.R.417).

I t i s eq'2;ill.y opcn

t o t h e Cour t ,

where

d i s c r c t l o n a r y o r d e r would,

j f

yrari ted,

p u t

i n t r a l n proceedlngs

i n abuse of

i t s p r o c c s s ,

t o r c i u s e

t h e o r d e r .

Tha t

1s what

Sml thers

J .

d i d ,

and

d l d r l g h c l y .

Counscl

f o r t h e

de fendan t s

b e f o r e

Smi the r s

took

l i t t l e o b j e c t i o n t o t h e

form o f

t h e a l l e g ~ t i o n s ,

founding h i s argument

p r i n c i p a l l y upon

t h e f u t i l i t y o f

a l l o w i n g

amendmants

whlch

were

c a l c u l a t e d

t o s e c u r e o n l y

d e c l a r a t l o n s

t h a t c r imes had been

c o m i t t e d .

Although :ie

s h o u l d

f i n d t h e form o f

t h e allegations

sufficient

t o w a r r a n t

t h e d i s m i s s a l

o f

t h i s a p p e a l ,

t h e o r d e r nay

b e

upheld

a s

t h e

most

conven ien t wcy

o f

d e a l i n g w i t h

a p p l l c n t i o n w h i c h ,

i f

g r a n t e d ,

would

have

r e q u i r e d

t h e Supreme Cour t

t o e n t e r t ? ~ n

a c t i o n which

would

abuse

i ts p r o c c s s .

Both

t h e form o f

t h c p l e a d l n g and t h e c l a m s For

d e c l a r a t l o n s

i n r e s p e c t

o f

c r i n e s

show

t h a t t h e appea l

must

f a i l .

T t i s oppressive

t o r e q u i r e

t h e p r e s e n t

d e f e n d a ~ t s

t o

p l e a d

t o zl

Sta t emen t o f

C l a m i n whlch

a l l e g a t i o n s

l i n l r l c g

them w i t h the proposed d e f e c d a n t s

a r e made

i n an u n i n t ~ l l l g i b l i

f o r m ;

and

i t i s o p p r e s s i v e

t o r e q u i r e

t h e p r e s e n t

defencl?.nts

t o go t o t r i a l t o oppose

t h e maklng o f

d e c l a r a t i o n s whlch

m a n i f e s t l y

w i l l n o t be

made.

The

j o i n l n g

o f

additional

de fendan t s

ought

n o t

b e

o r d c r e d

u n l e s s

t h e proposed

p l c a d l n g

r e v c a l s i n an

intelligible way

t h e c a x e o f

d c t l o n o r g r o a d

f o r r e l l e f

a g a i n s t them,

and

u n l e s s

t h e j o i n i n g oE

t h e

de fendan t s

i s shmm t o b e

f o r t h c purpose

o f

c l a imlng

a p p r o p r l d t e

r e l l c f

a g a l n s t

them.

T h e

proposed

Statement

Claim f a l l s t o do s o , and ~ t -

woul2 be a s opprcssxvc of the

pro;)oscci

add1 t

1 or.31 :i?f~>,?2~:::;

C S L t

15 oppi6!,-i L V C OL C i l c

p r e s c n t

dcfenclants.

a d d i t i o n a l objection

h a s

t a k e n

b e f o r e

S m i t h e r s

t o j o i n i n g

t h e At torney-Genera l .

M r s .

I n g l i s

s o u g h t

t o j o i n

t h e At torney-Genera l

though

r e l i e f w a s

c l a imed

a g a i n s t him.

The At torney-Genera l

i s n o t

p r o p e r p a r t y t o b c

j o i n e d

when

t h e p l a i n t i f f

w i shes

t o make

c l a i m i n t o r t n o t a g a i n s t him

b u t

a g a i n s t

t h e Cornonwealth

(Ba inb r ldqe v.

Pos tnas t e r -Genz ra l

-p

[ l9061 1 K.B.718;

Sargood Bros . v. The Cornmo;lr:ealth (1.910) 11

C.L.R.258

a t p.303;

N e w Sou th \$ales v. -

Bardo lph

(1934)

5 2 C.L.F.

455

a t p .S13) ,

and

a n a p p l i c a t i a n t o b r l n g him

i n a s a

p a r t y

i n such 211

a c t i o n w i t h o u t

c l a i m l n g any

r e l i e f

a ~ a i n s t

hlm i s

I f M r s .

I n g l l s c a n make

an i n t e l l i g i b l e c a s e on whsc:~

t o base a

c l a l m f o r r e l l e f which 1s n o t an dbuse o f t h e c o u r t ' s

p r o c e s s ,

t h e o r d e r made

Sni i thers

w l l l n o t s t o p h e r from

pur su iny

i t .

I n s a y l n g s o ,

w e wlsh

t o g u a r d a g a i n s t a

s u g g e s t i o n

t h a t

t h e

r e p e t i t l o u s

a p ~ l l c a t l o n s

f o r l e a v e t o accnd

h e r p l e a d l n g

a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e

c o n s i d e r a t i o n

o f

any

f u k u r c

a p p l l c a t l o n which

s h e mlght

make.

C e r t a l n

i s t h a t she

shou ld

n o t b e

p e r m i t t e d

t o p r o s e c u t e

t h e p r e s e n t

a c t i o n

i n t h e

form advanced by

h e r i n nak ing t h e a p i ~ l i c a t i o n

t o Smit11c.r-S ,J.

That a p p l i c a t i o n was

r l g h t l y r e f u s e d .

His

Honour was

a l s o

r i g h t t o rejcct

I - I r s .

I n g l l s '

a p p l ~ c a t l o n

t h a t he

s h o u l d

n o t

h e a r h e r a l ~ p l i c d t l o n .	T h e r e was	no	ground	f o r h e r a p p l i c a t i o ~ l
i n t h a t b e h a l f .

T h i s

appc-L

s h o u l d b e

d i s m i s s e d ,

and M r s .

I n g l l s

shou ld pay

t h e c o s t s o f

t h e r e sponden t s

t o he

t :?; :ed.

I ccrtl:?

that th1s .=;:.i

t!iz

j318 (:e<hicj 1 4

pacics >re a tn~~.

COT,. of t!,r? Jt:,~,-r-ls or

J1;3:,~1

,t of

the

I r

tk:~r~u,-s

!:K. JII:

I?rern+?

I;K. LLL-,LIC~ DL~I .<S. ,