SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Manny v Australian Postal Corporation |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 148 |
Hearing Date: | 13 March 2024 |
Submissions last received: | 28 March 2024 |
Decision Date: | 14 April 2025 |
Before: | McWilliam J |
Decision: | 1. The Further Amended Originating Claim filed 16 February 2024, Amended Originating Claim filed 18 October 2023 and Amended Statement of Claim filed 18 October 2023 are each struck out. 2. Proceeding SC 95 of 2023 is dismissed. 3. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding. |
Catchwords: | CIVIL PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – summary judgment – summary dismissal – where no cause of action disclosed – whether proceedings constitute abuse of process – where claims sought to be raised previously litigated and determined – where defendant also relies on statutory immunity – summary dismissal ordered |
Legislation Cited: | Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth) s 34 Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) s 5A Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 405, 406, 407, 425, 432, 505, 1146(2), 1147(2) |
Cases Cited: | Arrow International Australia Ltd v Group Konstrukt Pty Ltd [2012] ACTCA 37; 7 ACTLR 48 Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Manny & Ors (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 143 Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority(NSW) [2006] HCA 27; 226 CLR 256 Bolas v Calvary Health Care ACT Ltd [2016] ACTSC 58 Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd v Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty Limited [2010] ACTSC 20; 4 ACTLR 114 Galovac Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory [2010] ACTSC 132; 19 ACTLR 238 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Kevern v Marshall [2012] ACTSC 9 Macdougall v Knight (1890) 25 QBD 1 Manny v Australian Capital Territory [2025] ACTSC 151 Manny v Commonwealth (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 146 Manny v Shiels [2022] ACTCA 22 McGuirk v The University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424 P and W v Manny and Anor [2010] ACTSC 50 Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (in liq) [2003] HCA 25; 214 CLR 514 Piepkorn v Caroma Industries Ltd [2002] FCAFC 37 Shiels v Manny and Manny Pty Ltd; Manny v Shiels [2012] ACTCA 22 Szanto v Bainton [2011] NSWSC 985 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; 256 CLR 507 UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45; 265 CLR 77 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 |
Parties: | Jeff Manny ( Plaintiff) Australian Postal Corporation ( Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Self-represented ( Plaintiff) B Jones ( Defendant) |
| Solicitors Self-represented ( Plaintiff) Moray & Agnew ( Defendant) | |
File Number: | SC 95 of 2023 |
McWILLIAM J:
1․Mr Jeff Manny (the plaintiff) is suing the Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post) on a variety of common law and statutory causes of action, in relation to difficulties that arose with the redirection and timely delivery of his mail. Relief in the form of compensation for $14 million…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Manny v Australian Postal Corporation and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] ACTSC 148
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action and if the proceedings were an abuse of the court process. The court had to consider the plaintiff's previous litigation history, the applicability of statutory immunity, and the principles governing summary dismissal. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were res judicata or whether they could be revived under any circumstances. The court also had to assess if the application for summary judgment was appropriate given the defendant's defence of immunity and the history of the case.
The court found that the plaintiff had not disclosed a reasonable cause of action as the claims had already been determined in previous litigation and the plaintiff had not presented any new evidence or arguments to support the claims. The court also found that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process due to the re-litigation of previously determined claims. Additionally, the defendant's reliance on statutory immunity further supported the argument for summary dismissal. The court determined that the plaintiff's claims were res judicata and could not be revived. The court ultimately ordered that the plaintiff's claims be struck out, the proceeding dismissed, and the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Further Amended Originating Claim filed 16 February 2024, Amended Originating Claim filed 18 October 2023 and Amended Statement of Claim filed 18 October 2023 are each struck out.
2. Proceeding SC 95 of 2023 is dismissed.
3. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceeding.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.