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…

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 MCCONNELL v ALBANESE

Details

AGLC: MCCONNELL v ALBANESE [2024] SASCA 131
Case: [2024] SASCA 131
Decision Date: 14 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *McConnell v Albanese*, the applicant sought to appeal a decision, but the Court of Appeal of South Australia, presided over by Livesey P, considered whether to permit the filing of the appeal notice and grounds. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's apparent attempt to bypass the required filing fee for an appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the proposed appeal was so devoid of merit as to constitute an abuse of process, thereby justifying the rejection of the filing. This required the Court to assess the likelihood of success on the merits and whether the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the court's process.

Livesey P reasoned that the appeal notice and grounds, if filed, would almost certainly be struck out, and leave to appeal would not be granted. The President concluded that the appeal lacked any legal merit and was therefore frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, or an abuse of process. Accordingly, pursuant to rule 13.3(2)(a) of the *Uniform Civil Rules 2020* (SA), the Registrar was directed to reject the notice and grounds of appeal for filing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

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.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.