Lawlor v Perez - [2022] VSC 590

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

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

S ECI 2022 03401

MARK LAWLOR	Plaintiff
v
ARMANDO CHRISTIAN PEREZ	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 Perez
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 590

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Refusal by Prothonotary to accept for filing an originating motion seeking discovery from rapper ‘Pitbull’, together with associated affidavit – Proposed proceeding allied with action sought to be brought against Hollywood actress, ‘Ruby Rose’ – Whether proceeding so commenced would be irregular or an abuse of process of the Court – No direction made to accept the documents for filing.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Lawlor sought to file with the Court –

(a) an originating motion dated 25 August 2022; and

(b) a supporting affidavit of the plaintiff dated 25 August 2022.

The originating motion states the following relief or remedy sought –

Under Section 32.07 Discovery from non-party of supreme court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.
I’m seeking to confirm the song “I feel good” By the artist Armando Christian Perez, stage name “Pitbull” has reference to Ruby Rose impersonating a judge at Broadmeadows magistrates court in 2017. That court being based in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
I ask to confirm that the lyrics from the song “I feel good”, lyrics stating: “Put on a jacket ‘cause these diamonds give you chills” refer to:
1) Diamonds in the song refer to Ruby Rose.
2) Jacket in the song refers to Ruby rose wearing a black robe/jacket/cloak, black covering of some sort to disguise her Hollywood distinguishable features, I.E: neck tattoos, Personal appearance.
3) These references are reference in regard to Ruby Rose impersonating a judge in a real court case I was involved in, in 2017.
I’m seeking Armando Christian Perez reveal his knowledge/documentation about Ruby Rose impersonating a judge at Broadmeadows Magistrates court and if, if any documents are of existence that are, or have been in his possession, or may still be in his possession, if not, his knowledge on any documentation that existed, or might now be of non existence, relevant to this preliminary discovery which allowed him to release the song “I feel good” referencing Ruby Rose impersonating a judge.

In substance, Mr Lawlor seeks that Armando Christian Perez, a.k.a a rapper named or styled ‘Pitbull’, be ordered to make non-party discovery in connection with certain songs that, Mr Lawlor claims, confirm that a Hollywood actress named ‘Ruby Rose’ impersonated a magistrate sitting at Broadmeadows on 11 October 2017.

In that connection, Mr Lawlor deposes, among other things, that –

(a) ‘Ruby Rose the Hollywood actor’ impersonated ‘a judge at Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court’ on 11 October 2017, in the course of which she is said to have issued a court order comprising an undertaking;

(b) ‘Ruby Rose’ had…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lawlor v Perez

Details

AGLC: Lawlor v Perez [2022] VSC 590
Case: [2022] VSC 590
Decision Date: 4 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lawlor, a Sydney resident, sought to file an originating motion seeking discovery from a well-known rapper, ‘Pitbull’, in relation to a proposed proceeding against a Hollywood actress, ‘Ruby Rose’. The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales refused to accept the documents for filing, finding the proposed proceeding irregular or an abuse of the process of the Court. Lawlor sought an order from the Supreme Court to compel the Prothonotary to accept the originating motion for filing.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed proceeding would be irregular or an abuse of the Court’s process. The central issue was whether the Prothonotary’s refusal to accept the documents for filing was justified.

The court found that the proposed proceeding was irregular or an abuse of the process of the Court. The court considered the nature of the proposed proceeding, the relationship between the parties, and the potential for prejudice to other parties. The court held that the proposed proceeding was irregular as it was an attempt to use the Court’s process for a purpose other than the resolution of a genuine legal dispute. The court also found that the proposed proceeding was an abuse of the process of the Court as it was an attempt to use the Court’s process to obtain information for a purpose unrelated to the resolution of a genuine legal dispute. The court held that the Prothonotary’s refusal to accept the documents for filing was justified.

The court did not make any direction to accept the documents for filing. The court held that it was not appropriate to interfere with the Prothonotary’s decision in the circumstances of the case.

Orders