Lawlor v Langenheim

[2022] VSC 591

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST
PRACTICE COURT

S ECI 2022 03406

MARK LAWLOR	Plaintiff
v
RUBY ROSE LANGENHEIM	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	O’Meara J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	27 September 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 October 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lawlor v Langenheim
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 591

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Refusal by Prothonotary to accept for filing generally indorsed writ seeking to make a claim against Hollywood actress ‘Ruby Rose’ – Proposed proceeding allied with non-party discovery application made in respect of rapper ‘Pitbull’ – Whether proceeding would be irregular or an abuse of the process of the Court – No direction made to accept the documents for filing.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person

HIS HONOUR:

1. These reasons should be read together with my reasons concerning the allied application of Mr Lawlor seeking orders that non-party discovery be made by Armando Christian Perez, a.k.a ‘Pitbull’.[1]

   [1]Lawlor v Perez [2022] VSC 590.

1. I will not repeat here my identification and consideration of the relevant rules, principles and various material sought to be filed and relied upon by Mr Lawlor.  It is presently sufficient to note that I have determined that the application sought to be made in respect to ‘Pitbull’ would constitute an abuse of process of the Court and so should not be accepted for filing.

1. In the present instance, on 1 September 2022, Mr Lawlor sought to commence a proceeding by generally indorsed writ directed to Ruby Rose Langenheim.  The material identifies that person to be a Hollywood actress seemingly referred to as ‘Ruby Rose’.  Mr Lawlor’s proposed indorsement of claim accompanying the writ reads as follows –

The plaintiffs claim is for exemplary damages for injuries and trauma he received in an incident which occurred in 2017, involving the defendant at Broadmeadows magistrates court, case number: H12439666. The incident occurred whilst the plaintiff and defendant were involved in a hearing in which the defendant impersonated a judge. The accident occurred as the result of negligence of the defendant, it’s servants or agents and the plaintiff claims exemplary damages.[2]

[2]I note the slightly reformulated version of the indorsement proffered by Mr Lawlor and considered in the course of determining the present issue.  Among other things, that form of indorsement identifies the claim as being for ‘damages for breach of human rights and trauma’ and deletes the references to ‘injuries’ and ‘exemplary damages’.

1. Later the same day, Mr Lawlor was evidently advised that his documents had not been accepted for filing.  The Court email states, relevantly –

The Prothonotary has reviewed your Writ and advises the following. This case is related to the assertions in the originating motion filed 26 August 2022.  For similar reasons, I refuse to seal the writ but consider it appropriate to forward this writ with the originating motion for further consideration by a Judge.

1. By responding email on 8 September 2022, Mr Lawlor requested that the ‘file’ be added for ‘the judge to review’. 

1. As in respect of the application directed to ‘Pitbull’, the present issue is whether the rejected documents are irregular or would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.

1. In the present instance, Mr Lawlor explained that the wording of the proposed indorsement of claim was similar to another indorsement that he had identified and which was stated to be in the following terms –

The plaintiff’s claim is for damages for injuries he received to his back in an accident which occurred in or about 2 December 1975, whilst he was in the course of his employment with the defendant.  The accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the defendant, its servants or agents and the plaintiff claims damages.[3]

[3]Transcript (‘T’) 10.

1. Mr Lawlor said that such an indorsement had been ‘approved in 1983’ and that he was unsure as to why it was that his own proposed indorsement had been refused when ‘something like this can be accepted’.[4]

   [4]Ibid.

1. In the course of his submissions –

(a)        Mr Lawlor referred to a claimed incident in which ‘Ruby Rose’ impersonated a magistrate at Broadmeadows on 11 October 2017 and is said to have issued an undertaking in respect of Mr Lawlor – which Mr Lawlor acknowledged was ‘highly unlikely’, although he said that it was ‘not to say … that it hasn’t happened’;[5]

[5]T3-5.

(b)       Mr Lawlor claimed that the incident constituted ‘a clear violation of human rights’[6] and that the court documents from Broadmeadows were ‘falsified and fraudulent’;[7]

[6]T9.

[7]T13.

(c)        indeed, he stated –

there’s a breach of so many rights here … .  It’s not only my human rights.  Ah, it’s, you know, some documents being modified, it’s fraudulent behaviour within a system that’s deemed bullet proof.  Ah there’s so many ah breaches of general justice and the rule of law within itself has been broken … .  Ah so I sort of feel it’s no longer about me.  It’s about ensurin’ that this never happens to anyone again.[8]

[8]T11

(d)       nonetheless, Mr Lawlor acknowledged that he had not looked into appealing the undertaking and evidently had no objection to it;[9]

(e)        albeit that the events concerned were said by Mr Lawlor to have been the result of corruption and a ‘sickening’ cover up involving ‘other organisations’, an ‘illegal’ donation of money to the government and ‘Prime Ministers, deputies and a billionaire’;[10] and

(f)        Mr Lawlor also explained that he had experienced a ‘similar sort of … fraudulent behaviour’ when he was involved in a County Court proceeding involving his ex-partner.[11]

[9]T15.

[10]T22.  Albeit that Mr Lawlor acknowledged that he did not know who the persons were behind the claimed incident in which ‘Ruby Rose’ impersonated a judge: T12.

[11]T15-16.

1. More generally, Mr Lawlor stated –

Well the main question I asked myself is Ruby Rose hasn’t been able to do this on her own accord.  So she’s obviously, in my opinion, Your Honour, this is obviously, I feel, been approved at either State, Federal level or someone in a high power of position has allowed this to happen.  Ah for Ruby Rose, even the allegation against Ruby Rose, that accusation is she impersonated a judge, even that to ah be a talking point which is what my civil proceeding is what I’m tryin’ to ah get up and running, for even that to be under the discussion, someone has allowed this to happen and for someone to allow this to happen, it’s happened at a level a lot higher than Ruby Rose. 

Ah so Ruby Rose hasn’t just walked through the main reception and walked in a courtroom as some sort of a joke.  Ah she’s obviously been granted access, from what I assume, from the back.  It’s obviously been premeditated.  Um so I sort of feel that ah this is ah something that not only - I think this is step 1 in proving that Ruby Rose not only impersonated a judge, but I think deeper and beyond this, it’s about proving who allowed this to happen and I think it might be people, as I said, Your Honour, within a position of power.  And I don’t feel - if they are allowing this sort of stuff to happen, I don’t feel, Your Honour, they’re competent to be in a position of power and that’s just my opinion.[12]

[12]T11-12.

1. Mr Lawlor acknowledged that he did not know who ‘they’ were and thereafter explained that ‘getting a civil suit up and running against Ruby Rose’ was ‘stage 1’.[13]

   [13]T12.

1. Mr Lawlor’s concession that the concatenation of circumstances to which he refers is ‘highly unlikely’ is, in my view, a not insignificant understatement. 

1. Notwithstanding the very great latitude that should be afforded to any potential litigant, including Mr Lawlor, the circumstances to which I have referred leave me in no doubt that receipt of the documents relating to Mr Lawlor’s proposed claim against ‘Ruby Rose’ would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court within the meaning of that concept identified and explained by Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ in UBS AG v Tyne[14] and earlier considered and applied by Deane J in Staats v United States of America.[15] 

   [14](2018) 265 CLR 77, 83 [1].

   [15](1992) 66 ALJR 793.

1. In particular –

(a)   the allegations concerned are far-fetched and fanciful;

(b)  the allegations are sought to be made in the face of certified extracts of the court proceedings at Broadmeadows in 2017 that would stand both as evidence of that process and contrary to that which is asserted by Mr Lawlor;[16]

[16]Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 157.

(c)   Mr Lawlor’s assertions concerning the ‘fraudulent’ form of those documents are, in the end, based on no more than his own allegations concerning the underlying events – which are far-fetched;

(d)  in my view, there is no prospect that Mr Lawlor’s allegations could be accepted, and found by, any court;

(e)   that position is not remedied nor side-stepped by fastening upon the form of another indorsement of claim applicable to the circumstances of an entirely different case – particularly when it is now plain that even the form of indorsement presently proffered by Mr Lawlor does not represent the case that he would actually seek to bring concerning related and broader conspiracies by persons unknown;

(f)    even in respect of the claimed events said to have involved ‘Ruby Rose’, it is wholly unclear what ‘human rights’ of Mr Lawlor, or anyone else, are said to have been breached and, in any event, no entitlement to any award of damages could arise;[17] and

(g)  more specifically, Mr Lawlor, in fact, has no complaint in respect of the undertaking that he says was issued at Broadmeadows on 11 October 2017.

[17]Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), s 39(3).

1. Hopeless and vexatious litigation is a burden upon the persons against whom such litigation is brought.  For that matter, the Court, which is a public resource, is required to be available for the hearing and determination of cases of real substance.  That is why, in very rare and exceptional cases, the Court will protect itself and the administration of justice generally by refusing to receive documents that would constitute an abuse of its process.  This is one of those rare and exceptional cases.

1. For these reasons, I must decline to make the direction sought.