Maricic v Jones

[1991] HCATrans 366

•

• 'I

~

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S53 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

RADE RAJKO MARICIC

Applicant

and

IVANNE NATALIES JONES, ADRIAN

RONALD DOWN and JEAN BEVERLY

HILL

Respondents

Notice of Motion and

application for special leave

to appeal

MASON CJ

Maricic 1 13/12/91

DEANE J

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 13 DECEMBER 1991, AT 11.48 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Maricic?

MR R.R MARICIC:  Yes, Your Honour, that is an application

it is a notice of motion - - -

MASON CJ: Just a moment, Mr Maricic, we will take the

appearance of counsel for the respondent, or one of

them.

MR P.M. FRIEDLANDER:  If the Court pleases, I am

instructed, Your Honour, on behalf of the first and

second respondents or, in particular, on behalf of

the solicitors on the record for the first and
second respondents, and indicate that at this stage

the solicitors have no instructions from the first

and second respondents, notwithstanding some

frantic attempts in the last few days to get

confirmatory instructions and, accordingly, I would

be seeking leave to withdraw. I am appearing as a

matter of courtesy to the Court in that regard.

(instructed by Aubrey Brown Partner)

MASON CJ: Just to make that statement to the Court?

MR FRIEDLANDER: Well, yes, the problem being that

originally my name was placed on the list because

the first and second respondents did indicate

approximately two weeks ago that they may have some

interest in the matter but were to get back to the

solicitors and my name did go on the list.	I
thought it was a matter of courtesy to the

solicitors. They were of some concern that their

having indicated that I might be appearing, it
might be some discourtesy to the Court if there was
no appearance to indicate the reasons why no

appearance -

MASON CJ: Yes, thank you, Mr Friedlander.

Now, the Registrar has received a letter from

the solicitors for the third respondent advising

him that they do not intend to take part in the

proceedings. Mr Maricic?

MR MARICIC: Well, yes, Your Honour, that has been stated in

the application that - - -

MASON CJ:  Do you wish to be excused, Mr Friedlander?

MR FRIEDLANDER: If I may, yes, Your Honour.

MASON CJ:  You may be.

MR MARICIC: That is application for extrinsic material to

the interpretation of an Act 1901,

section 15AB(2)(d) with statutes stated in the

Maricic 2 13/12/91

written submission in the Court of Appeal hearing
of this application. That is on page 2 which
specifies the conduct and the proceedings which the
notice of motion was filed with our affidavit and
the contents of the judgment what was in the notice

of motion which was dismissed with costs.

MASON CJ:  Now, you can take it we have read the application

book, the papers that are in the two booklets are
with us. So, we are familiar with what is there in

the materials.

MR MARICIC:  Well then, then there is exhibits A and Bin

that application book.

MASON CJ: Yes.

MR MARICIC:	I want you to have a look, please.
MASON CJ:	Do you want to hand those documents in?
MR MARICIC:	Yes.
MASON CJ:	Yes?

MR MARICIC: There is, in the judgment of His Honour

Mr Justice Kirby on page 16, paragraph 5 to 15,

which specifies the decree nisi was made on 15
December 1969 and those orders are still valid.
And then the judgment of His Honour Mr Justice

Needham on page 1 which specifies that Official

Receiver - the court has no power to appoint

Official Receiver. There is in the statement of Official Receiver, it was stated that 2 December

1971 that miscarriage of justice was occurred when

the decree nisi was granted.

MASON CJ: Well, Mr Maricic, this Court has no jurisdiction

to appoint an Official Receiver or, for that

matter, to appoint a Royal Commission.

MR MARICIC: Well, Your Honour, His Honour was the judge in

the proceedings of 30 April this year and

Mr Justice Hope who was the Commissioner in the

Royal Commission and would have heard the case when

the Royal Commission was closed. It is something -

about 20 August 1980 he referred the case to the

Federal Parliament and this is a portion of the

report to Mr Justice Hope.

On page 19 which is the proceeds of the sale

of the Property purchased at 33 Nicholson Street,

Burwood was deposited into the consolidated revenue

fund - federal. And on page 3 which is I am asking

$250,000 against the consolidated revenue fund to

reimburse the deposited money which was deposited

by the Official Receiver. Then there is $20,000

Maricic 13/12/91

additional which was overpaid to the estate of the

bankrupt, 349 of 1971, which was $3505 which I am

asking $20,000 to be reimbursed that for

being interest in my respect for the money.

On page 20, paragraph B, which is I am

claiming the compensation of the loss of relatives

under sections 3 sand 4 of the Relatives Act 1897.

It is $50,000 which will be appropriate interest on

the money which would be approximately $110,000 of

each, my late wife and the son.

MASON CJ: The problem, Mr Maricic, is this: you commenced

proceedings by way of an application under the

Family Provision Act. All these other claims that

you make are outside the scope of those

proceedings.

MR MARICIC:  No, Your Honour, there was an order which was

stated by Mr Justice Kirby on page 16 which

refers the decree nisi which was never implemented

so that applies for ..... in their conduct which

affects the orders statutes.

And then that is the application which was

filed in 1988 which is under the Full Court of the

Family Law Court which is pending to be heard in

the High Court, so that is additional evidence in

there. And there was an application which was filed

last year. So, that is additional there which you

have not ..... there which was a request by the

Registrar of the Court of Appeal to file the

requisition which I have filed and they failed to

register. So, that is showing inconsistency.

The various statutes which is including on

that page 20 and 21 which relates to statute which

was a case which was involved under our

Constitution. And this particularly had been

stated under paragraph 5 which was stated with

concern. And there is a letter, exhibits A and B

which relate to the estate, how it was administered

and what error was done by the estate.

MASON CJ: What do they relate to?

MR MARICIC:  This relates to the properties in the estate

which I lodged a dealing which was rejected by the

RG which does not make sense what is in there. And

that is Official Receiver who deposited money into

consolidated revenue fund.

MASON CJ: Well, I have told, we have got no jurisdiction in

the proceedings here to deal with that matter.

MR MARICIC: Well, Your Honour, you have got to have. Well,

the money was deposited into the consolidated

Maricic 4 13/12/91

revenue fund. Proceeds of the sale - contract was

ab initio, which means there was no Treasury

receipts of the proceeds of the sale. Third party,

Mr Teklic, well actually done a trespassing there

and there is provision which - the money which was

deposited in consolidated revenue fund there is the

remedy to be reimbursed, that I am entitled to
repossession of the property and Mr Teklic is

entitled to have a remedy of the money which

creates the interest on the money. So, it is as

simple as that.

I lodged a dealing which was rejected. That

is exhibit, letter A.

MASON CJ: There is no point in our receiving the document,

Mr Maricic.

MR MARICIC: Well, that is list of authority which is CBS

Production Pty Ltd v O'Neill, (1985) 1 NSWLR 601,

604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 611, 612, 614 and
616, and Re Harding, (1987) NSWLR 464 to 467, and
Fisher v Fisher, (1986) Fam LR 701, at page 705;

56, 57, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75 and The Will of ..... ,

(1973) NSWLR 180 to 183 - - -

MASON CJ: Mr Maricic, it is, I think, of no assistance

merely to refer to these cases. Your problem is,

as I have endeavoured to point out to you, that the

relief that you are seeking in these proceedings is

not available to you in these proceedings.

MR MARICIC: Well, Your Honour, there is application which

is filed, it is Sl25 of 1988 and this was not heard

and then reactivated proceeding on the same - on

22 February the case was appeared before the Court

of Appeal and Mr Justice Kirby said, "Mr Maricic,

we cannot dismiss your application. Your summons

is under paragraphs 1, 2, 3", he said, "That's your

legitimate right. All we need: additional

evidence in paragraph 5 of the summonses", and he

said, "But you file an application in the Family

Law" or "You proceed in the Family Law Court to

save the cost" which I proceeded. And then what

was in there, that is on pages 40 - 45, which no

legal profession and they take no - any legal

responsibility in the case.

So, then I reactivating proceeding in the

Court of Appeal which did not get nowhere anyway so

then what was in the Court of Appeal then they

grant a judgment - judgment was granted on 2 April

which was incorrect and this was - the judgment was

granted on the same day when it was heard,

30 April.

Maricic	13/12/91
MASON CJ:	We are familiar - we know what happened in the case, but we have read the judgment of the Court of
Appeal.
MR MARICIC:	And then what is holding to me that made the order which is the first ..... applicant in the
proceeding?
MASON CJ:	The Court of Appeal held that there was no

substance in your case and that a number of the

claims that you were making fell outside the scope

of the proceedings that you had initiated.

MR MARICIC: Well, Your Honour, that can be - I mean, the

judgment, what is in the proceeding there, they did

not - I submit written submission and that one

never take place.

MASON CJ: Well, we have heard what you have had to say in

support of the application.	I do not think you can
take it any further.

MR MARICIC: Well, you are putting down - that is a conflict

of the law. All I have to submit to the is only I have option and take it from there on.

That is all that I can say.

MASON CJ:  Now, is there anything else you wish to say,

Mr Maricic?

MR MARICIC:  What is in the list of the authorities and what

is - - -

MASON CJ: Yes. Well, we follow that. We have read the

submissions in the application book.

MR MARICIC:  I have nothing to add.

MASON CJ: Thank you, Mr Maricic.

In the opinion of the Court, the decision of

the Court of Appeal is correct. The application

for special leave to appeal is refused.

AT 12.06 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Maricic 6 13/12/91