Martens v Stokes

[2011] QSC 65

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Martens v Stokes & Anor [2011] QSC 65

PARTIES:

FREDERICK ARTHUR MARTENS
(Plaintiff)
v
TANIA ANN STOKES
(First Defendant)
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

613 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

30 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

18 February 2011

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

1. The plaintiff’s claim and the Statement of Claim are struck out.

2. The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the application and the action to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

Constitutional Law (Cth) – Federal Jurisdiction – Suit to which the Commonwealth is a party – Commonwealth Statute requiring rights of Commonwealth to be as nearly as possible the same as in a suit between subject and subject – Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 64 – Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth) s 64B.

Constitutional law – Inconsistency of Commonwealth and State Laws – Covering the Field – The Constitution s 109.

Failure to Comply with Procedure – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 149, 155 and 158 – Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) s 9.

COUNSEL:

R W Gotterson QC with S McLeod for the defendants/applicants
M P Sumner-Potts for the plaintiff/respondent

SOLICITORS:

Australian Government Solicitors for the applicants
Smithfield Law for the respondents

1. By this application, the first and second defendants seek orders that the plaintiff’s claim be struck out or stayed on the grounds either that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear it or that the proceedings are irregular.

1. By his claim the plaintiff seeks damages and exemplary damages against the defendants under eight headings namely:

That the defendants:

(a)        conspired to pervert the course of justice;

(b)        maliciously prosecuted the plaintiff;

(c)        were guilty of misfeasance in a public office;

(d)        were guilty of breach of statutory duty;

(e)        defamed the plaintiff to the world at large and, inter alia, to the owners of the Pajinka Resort on Cape York;

(f) breached its international obligations to the sovereign state of Papua New Guinea for their own purposes to the detriment of the plaintiff, and so that he would not have the safeguards and freedoms afforded to him by the Constitution thereof as a resident of Papua New Guinea;

(g)        breached their duty of care to the plaintiff;

(h)        committed perjury.[1]

[1]Statement of Claim para [91]

1. These allegations, as best as can be gleaned from a pleading which shows little regard to Rules 149, 155 and 158 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, arise form the investigation by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) of complaints by two teenaged girls that the plaintiff engaged in sexual intercourse with them at Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea contrary to the provision of s 50BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cwth).[2] The plaintiff contended that the girls’ complaints were false and asked the AFP to investigate the circumstances in which the complaints were made. He contends either no such investigation was…