Inglis v Moore

[1979] FCA 43

P l e a d i n g - Lack of 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 1

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.

2. 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 of 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 of 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 J S+ at c";c,:n';

of c l a l ~ n by t h e r;ubsti.l-ution oC a 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; no 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 on appea l .

The \vhole of 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 a s t a t c m c n t of 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 on 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 ? ~ ~s

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 . As t o t h o s c s u b m i s s i o n s , it is a p p a r e n t f rom t h e

transcript of 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 J. e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n t h a t s u c h a 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 J.

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 no 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 zn 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 r

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 h ~ Mason J. t

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 of 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 of c l a in?

s i g n e d by co!insel on 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 it 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 of 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 of

c l a i m was some 47 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 . of p a r a ~ r a p h 15G. Ec 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 \ ~ ~ is a 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. "

I 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 of t h c

l a c k o f p ~ ~ r t l c u l a r l t y in 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 OK 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

of t h e d2fcnd;~nts coi~zt.ltut.t:d cr imi n a l con.r,pllac:jcs \;h',t.i?er

against S. BG 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 of 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 I 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 a 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 of 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

a 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 a 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 a declaration a r c t h o s e i n whi-ch t h c r c \:as no

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 by Gibby A . C . J . ) t h e v a l l d l t y of

a n o t i c e c l e l ~ v - . r c d i n pxrp0rtc.d pursuance of 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 - A .

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 , be 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 of

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 of whlch I 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~ t of dec la ra tu l -y r e l ~ c C , I 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

be t h a t a defc.nciarit l r i c i v l l pr~c:.::cdlr~ys i ; o (~ ld b-. fo-nd t o

have c o ~ m i t t e d a 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 bp 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 a staternr:nt f 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 of h c r appea l fro[-I l.:ason J.

t o t h e f u l l High Cour t . An ~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 be

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

of t h e Suprcmc Caul-t b e f o r e S!n;tlln=rs J. 1 r~oul t i have

d l s n n s s c d the appca l on 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 .

I 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 l

-.

Ge~..~.>ns f:,r ,T:.Ll.-qe:-.i. h l ; - ? c ? ~ l o f his -c811011il

-

l . S j c l i ~ ,

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

1

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 an a p p e a l from a n o r d c r made by S m ~ t h e r s G .

s i t t i n g as a 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 . An 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 of 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 -

be 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

of t h e motlon be r e s e r v e d .

A s it 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 be 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 a

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 J. 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 of 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

by 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 an abuse o f t h e p r o c e s s o f t h a t Court ( s e ?

50 A.L.J.R.589). An 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 J.

it 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 J.

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 , he

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 of :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 Ln 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

by 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 , or 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 of 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 J. 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 a 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 ~f

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 a 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 by 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 us 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 be 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 of t h e

Comnonwealth of 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

M. 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 a 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 S. 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 of 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 oE

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 a 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 of 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. On 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 by 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. I,

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. On 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 on 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 an 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 an 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 18

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

be 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 3f

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 is "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, "a

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 a p r o p e r survc i l l anc .~r? by 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 or 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 on 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

of 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 by 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 by r e f e r e n c e .

How i s a de fendan t CO 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 v. 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 a 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

be 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 hy

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 a 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 "a 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

of 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

no s u b h t a n t l v c i:cllef 1s 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 a 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

is 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 a 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 a 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 a 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 bv t h e s e d l f f i c u l t ~ e s i s s h ~ 7 ~ 7 -.

,. . A

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

on o c c a s i o n s - 1s 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 r

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 of 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 I 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 , a j u d l c l a l d e c l a r a t i o n of 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 a 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 as

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 be 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 be an

abuse of 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 a 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 , it LS

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 a 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 J.

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 an 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

an 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 of

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.

An 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 J.

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 no 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 a 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 a 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 by Sni i thers J. 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 it 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+?

,

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