MCCONNELL v ALBANESE - [2024] SASCA 131

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Civil)
MCCONNELL v ALBANESE
[2024] SASCA 131
Decision of the Honourable President Livesey
14 November 2024
PROCEDURE - STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY - INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS - TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS
This matter was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Registrar, pursuant to r 13.1(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA). The Registrar sought a direction as to whether the notice and grounds of appeal in this matter should be rejected for filing pursuant to r 32.3(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA).
Held: directing the Registrar to reject the applicant’s notice and grounds of appeal lodged for filing pursuant to r 32.3(1)(c) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA):
1.The appeal grounds essentially comprise a long list of assertions. Many are nonsensical. There is no prospect that leave to appeal would be granted. The appeal is wholly without merit.
2.Rules 13.3(1) and 32.3(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) assist in ensuring that the limited resources of the Court are not wasted on pointless and misconceived litigation, and that a respondent should not be put to unnecessary time, expense and stress.

Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 40; Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 130; Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) rr 2.1, 13.3, 32.3, 70.3, 213.1, referred to.
Atkins v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2024] SASCA 96; Barkla v Close [2024] SASC 115; Keane v Woolworths Group Ltd (No 3) [2024] SASCA 87; Martincic v Ethnic Broadcasters Inc [2024] SASCA 33; Sambastian v Police [2024] SASCA 79; Shmandiy v Police (No 2) [2024] SASCA 90; Staats v United States of America (1992) 66 ALJR 793; Trezise v South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2024] SASCA 100; Westwill Pty Ltd & Ors v Byrt & Ors [2010] SASC 99, considered.

MCCONNELL v ALBANESE
[2024] SASCA 131
Court of Appeal: Civil
LIVESEY P.
Introduction

By a claim filed on 1 October 2024 the applicant sues the respondent, the Prime Minister of Australia, apparently in negligence, claiming that he caused the applicant injury and harm. He relies on various provisions of the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA). Confusingly, the applicant also relies on various provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).[1] The applicant seeks default judgment.
[1] Sections 13(a), 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d); 23, 24, 251(a), 251(d), 251(e) and 267.
The claim is, with all respect, nonsensical and alleges that the respondent acted as co‑conspirator and principal offender. The applicant contends that he is the only person on earth to have the type of brain that he has and that all other people have a technologically advanced brain which, he says, is a human rights violation causing injury “as well as a tool used in conjunction with the Respondent delivering a form of torture upon the Applicant”.[2]
[2] Statement of Claim, part 3, [1].
Unsurprisingly this claim was dismissed by a magistrate under rr 70.3(1)(b) and (c) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) on the bases that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court, and that it did not disclose any reasonable cause of action.[3]
[3] Record of Outcome disclosing orders made by Magistrate Stratton‑Smith on 31 October 2024.
Notice and grounds of appeal
On 9 November 2024 the applicant attempted to file a notice and grounds of appeal, together with an application for a remission or reduction of court fees under s 130 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA).
The applicant has purported to appeal to the Court of Appeal even though the appeal should be brought in the General Division.[4] As will become clear, there is no point referring this matter to the General Division.
[4] Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA), s 40(3); Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), r 213.1(1)(a).
The grounds of appeal disclose allegations similar to those made in the claim and essentially comprise a long list of assertions. Many are nonsensical. None have legal merit. The applicant refers, amongst many other matters, to his attempt to resolve the matter eight years ago at a time when he was “misguided into believing he was not mentally well”.[5]
[5] Appeal Grounds, part 2, [3].
The orders sought on appeal include a claim that the respondent be ordered to provide the applicant “with a new body with the described technologically advanced brain in comparison to the brain the Applicant currently has” as well as an order that the respondent provide the applicant with access “to all information associated to the situation the Applicant is involved in”.[6]
[6] Appeal Grounds, part 3, [1]-[2].
As with his claim, the applicant again seeks default judgment on appeal.
Registrar’s referral
On 12 November 2024 the acting Deputy Registrar (the Registrar)[7] referred the matter to me, seeking directions pursuant to r 13.3(1) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA):
[7]     The Registrar of the Court includes a person to whom a function of the Registrar has been delegated pursuant to r 2.1 of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA).
13.3—Registrar may seek directions
(1)The Registrar may refer to the Court any question arising in the course of the performance of an administrative function.
(2)     The Court may on such referral—
(a)     give such directions as it thinks fit; or
(b)     assume control of the matter.
The Registrar is of the opinion that the notice and grounds of appeal should be rejected for filing under r 32.3(1) because the appeal document is, “frivolous, vexatious, scandalous or an abuse of the process of the Court”. In Trezise v South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, I explained:[8]
It is well recognised that when accepting or rejecting a document lodged for filing the Registrar is acting in an administrative capacity. When giving a direction to the Registrar the Court acts in aid of an administrative function of the Registrar and of the Court … its purpose was to ensure that the resources of the Court were not wasted on pointless and misconceived litigation and that a respondent should not be put to unnecessary time, expense and stress.[9] …
… it is necessary to preserve the limited resources of the Court against having to adjudicate on matters that are without legal merit. The Court of Appeal has had regard to these considerations when notices and grounds of appeal have been struck out,[10] when unmeritorious applications for leave to appeal have been dismissed,[11] and where unmeritorious interlocutory applications have been made, particularly where they are not made in support of an appeal.[12]
A referral by the Registrar under r 13.3(1) simply represents an earlier stage at which it may be appropriate to act to ensure that the limited resources of the Court are not wasted. In addition, and as the Registrar recognised in this case, there is an unfairness to a litigant if filing is permitted and it is highly likely that the appeal documents, if not the appeal itself, will be struck out or dismissed. That unfairness is only underscored where the litigant is required to pay a filing fee.
[8] Trezise v South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2024] SASCA 100, [6]-[8].
[9] Westwill Pty Ltd & Ors v Byrt & Ors [2010] SASC 99, [3] (Gray J), referring to Staats v United States of America (1992) 66 ALJR 793.
[10] See, for example, Martincic v Ethnic Broadcasters Inc [2024] SASCA 33.
[11] Sambastian v Police [2024] SASCA 79, Shmandiy v Police (No 2) [2024] SASCA 90; Atkins v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2024] SASCA 96.
[12] Keane v Woolworths Group Ltd (No 3) [2024] SASCA 87.
Though the applicant wishes to avoid paying the filing fee, it is almost certain that, if filed, the appeal notice and its associated grounds would be struck out. There is no prospect that leave to appeal would be granted. The appeal is wholly without legal merit. Consistently with directions recently given in other cases,[13] it is appropriate that a direction should be given to the Registrar in this case.
[13] Trezise v South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2024] SASCA 100; Barkla v Close [2024] SASC 115.
Conclusion
Accordingly, pursuant to r 13.3(2)(a) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), the Registrar is directed to reject the notice and grounds of appeal for filing because the appeal is frivolous, vexatious, scandalous or an abuse of the process of the Court.