Michail v Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre (No. 5)

[2017] NSWDC 13

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 5) [2017] NSWDC 13
Hearing dates:	9 February 2017
Date of orders:	09 February 2017
Decision date:	09 February 2017
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	(1) These proceedings removed from the Inactive List. (2) The plaintiff’s applications contained in paragraphs 98 – 107 of her document entitled “Prominent Unresolved Issues for Resolution by Chief Justice of NSW and NSW District Court Chief Justice [sic] by Monday 12 December 2016 and Requested Outcomes” are dismissed. (3) A peremptory order for the plaintiff to file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with my orders of 24 September 2015 by Wednesday 22 February 2017 at 4:00pm. (4) Any applications by the defendant in relation to this pleading (including any failure by the plaintiff to comply with order (3)) are stood over to Thursday 23 February 2017. (5) Costs reserved.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - defendant brings application to strike out part or whole of the statement of claim on the basis of pleading defects - plaintiff's application for leave to appeal unsuccessful - subsequent delays in part due to plaintiff's medical condition - whether plaintiff should be ordered to file amended pleading - turns on its own facts
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56 – 62 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36
Cases Cited:	Bi v Mourad [2010] NSWCA 17 Gunns Ltd v Marr [2005] VSC 251 Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1722 McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 1424 McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 253 McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 104 Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre [2015] NSWDC 145 Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 2) [2015] NSWDC 214 Michail v Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre Inc [2015] NSWCA 396 Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 3) (District Court of New South Wales, Gibson DCJ, 9 February 2016) Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 4) (District Court of New South Wales, Gibson DCJ, 1 June 2016) Nobarani v Mariconte [2016] NSWCA 214 Pierno v Rixon [2016] NSWSC 297 Torpey Vander Have Pty Ltd v Mass Constructions Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 263 Waters v United Permanent Building Society Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Young J, 27 July 1988) YZ v Amazon [2013] NSWSC 1522 YZ v Amazon (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 415 YZ v Amazon (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1130 YZ v Amazon (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1346 YZ v Amazon (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 1539 YZ v Amazon (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1951 YZ v Amazon (No 7) [2016] NSWSC 637
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Plaintiff: Nancy Michail Defendant: Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre
Representation:	Counsel: Defendant: Ms S Chrysanthou   Solicitors: Plaintiff: In person Defendant: Kennedys Lawyers
File Number(s):	2015/53739
Publication restriction:	None

Judgment

1. These proceedings were listed today for directions. The plaintiff brings a series of requests which are set out at [16] below. The defendant asks the court for orders for the plaintiff to file an amended pleading in accordance with my orders of 24 September 2015: Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 2) [2015] NSWDC 214. These are my reasons for the orders I have made today.

The procedural history of the plaintiff’s claims

2. The plaintiff commenced proceedings for defamation and breach of contract by Summons in the Parramatta Registry of this court on 20 February 2015. As this was the wrong court and the wrong pleading, the proceedings were transferred to the Defamation List and a Statement of Claim was filed on 5 March 2015. The amended pleading which followed was the subject of extensive challenge (by the defendant) and an application for leave to appeal (by the plaintiff) was refused: Michail v Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre Inc [2015] NSWCA 396. The issue before me today is to determine future conduct of these proceedings given that the pleadings have not proceeded further since the Court of Appeal’s judgment was handed down on 16 December 2015.

3. This failure to proceed is not for the usually stated reasons, such as absence of particulars or the difficulties of framing a defamation claim. The plaintiff should be better able than many self-represented litigants to draft pleadings and conduct her claim, as her cause of action arises out of her employment as a solicitor at the Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre, and she has had assistance from two pro bono barristers provided by this court’s referral service. I have also done what I could to help her. I set out the relevant principles for the plaintiff’s benefit in a judgment (Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre [2015] NSWDC 145) and later in a judgment dealing with the defendant’s many objections to the statement of claim: Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 2) [2015] NSWDC 214. The decision of the Court of Appeal (Michail v Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre Inc [2015] NSWCA 396) dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from that judgment would have very materially assisted the plaintiff in understanding the way forward in this litigation. It would have been clear to the plaintiff, from that time onwards, that she needed to progress the case towards hearing.

4. However, this has not occurred. This is in part for understandable medical reasons. In a notice of motion listed for hearing on 25 January 2016, the plaintiff told the court she was too distressed to continue her litigation as she was seeking psychiatric help. With the consent of the defendant, the proceedings were removed into the Inactive List: Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 3) (District Court of New South Wales, Gibson DCJ, 9 February 2016).

5. On 25 January 2016, the plaintiff also sought the appointment of a second pro bono barrister to advise her in relation to her claim. As these proceedings were in the Inactive List, I deferred making such an order, but this second referral was made five months later: Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 4) (District Court of New South Wales, Gibson DCJ, 1 June 2016). As part of my orders on 1 June 2016, I also stood the matter over for further directions to 28 July 2016, such directions to include the filing of any amended statement of claim if not filed beforehand. This did not occur because, on 28 July 2016 and again on 25 August 2016, a pro bono barrister appeared on behalf of the plaintiff to advise that the parties were exploring settlement. That was very much to the benefit of both parties and consent orders were accordingly made.

6. Those reasons were understandable but, from that time onwards, difficulties began to arise. On 15 September 2016, the pro bono barrister advised the court that pursuant to r 7.36 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) he had conveyed to the Registrar his intention to return the brief in accordance with the Bar Rules. Ms Michail was unable to attend court on 4 October 2016 due to a death in her family and I placed the matter back in the Inactive List with a notional review date of 3 November 2016.

7. Although the matter was in the Inactive List, the plaintiff sought an order from the court for the appointment of a third referral to a pro bono barrister. On 21 October 2016, an assistant registrar advised that, despite a number of attempts, he had been unable to find legal assistance for the plaintiff in accordance with the court’s orders to that effect of 15 September 2016 and accordingly, pursuant to r 7.36(4A) UCPR, an order was made terminating the referral.

8. On 3 November 2016, the plaintiff attended court by telephone and advised that she was too distressed to conduct the case. Over the opposition of the defendant, I left the matter in the Inactive List with a return date of today, 9 February 2017.

The plaintiff’s applications

9. One of the plaintiff’s applications today is for these proceedings to remain in the Inactive List. However, while the plaintiff claims to be unable to conduct her defamation proceedings, she has been at the same time busily engaged in a flood of correspondence not only to this court but to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, the Registrars of these courts, the New South Wales Bar Association and former and current members of Parliament, the NSW Police Force, making allegations of the most serious kind, coupled with requests that they resign from their positions in disgrace and/or leave the legal profession and/or return the Order of Australia Medal. The precise basis for the making of these allegations is hard to determine, as much of the correspondence is frankly difficult to understand.

10. There seems to be no way to discourage or stop the plaintiff from sending correspondence of this kind. As the Court of Appeal noted in Michail v Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre Inc [2015] NSWCA 396 at [20], I asked the plaintiff, in my judgment of Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre [2015] NSWDC 145, to stop writing to the court. I have repeated this request on several occasions in open court, but without success.

11. The plaintiff has forwarded correspondence direct to the court from the beginning of this litigation, many of which emails were not sent to the defendant; I attached to my judgment of 9 February 2016 a long list of her correspondence to the court containing such matters as “Grievances and Explanation” (letter 42), complaining of “hidden agendas” (letter 60) and accusing the defendant of corresponding secretly with the court. It was in part to answer these allegations that the list of correspondence attached to my judgment was set up by me.

12. The plaintiff does not accept any form of restraint on her entitlement to continue to address the court in this fashion. She has widened the circle of recipients to include court registrars, the NSW Bar Association, politicians, police officers, employees of the defendant and the heads of jurisdiction of the Supreme and District Courts. Those letters are voluminous and their frequency and contents raise issues relevant to the conduct of these proceedings pursuant to ss 56 – 62 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). Attached to this judgment is a schedule which includes all the correspondence, nearly all of which consists of emails that the plaintiff has sent to multiple parties. Given the very serious allegations the plaintiff makes against a wide range of persons, I have anonymised the names of persons other than judicial officers and court staff.

13. Requests for the plaintiff to cease writing in these terms to the court (or at all, unless requested) appear to be seen by her as further evidence of the massive conspiracy against her by all court officials, under the aegis of current and former members of Parliament, who are asserted to have a secret relationship with the defendant (which the plaintiff has discovered through their Twitter accounts) and to be controlling these proceedings. At the same time, she continues to claim that she is too distressed to continue with her court proceedings and asks that they remain in the Inactive List.

The orders the parties seek

14. The defendant asks, as it asked on the last occasion, for orders for the plaintiff to file an amended statement of claim in accordance with my orders of 24 September 2015.

15. In the plaintiff’s email to my associate of 2 February 2017, she sets out the orders she seeks in a lengthy document and as follows in the covering letter:

“Dear Mr Mok

I refer to above matters, below email and attached document herewith. I did not get much time to escalate the matter to ICAC as yet due to Christmas and New Year’s holidays and dealing with personal family matters. I note that there is a directions hearing scheduled for Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 9:00 AM and I do not believe it would be practical for me to aim at taking the matter to ICAC to get the issues resolved before the directions hearing especially in light of the ongoing nature of the personal family matters I am currently dealing with. At this stage I would be seeking the resolutions specified in the attached document from the Court.

I request to appear in the directions hearing on 9 February 2017 at 9:00 AM via telephone link. My best contact details are:

Landline (Main contact): [telephone number]

Mobile (Back-up contact): [mobile number]

Yours faithfully

Nancy Michail”

16. This email attaches a long document entitled “Prominent Unresolved Issues for Resolution by Chief Justice of NSW and NSW District Court Chief Justice [sic] by Monday 12 December 2016 and Requested Outcomes”. In this document, the plaintiff seeks the following orders:

“Therefore, I respectfully request the following outcomes:

98. Court of Appeal judgement [sic] and orders of 16 December 2015 be overturned and/or dismissed.

99. Orders of 24 September 2015 be dismissed.

100. CCTV footage for 25 January 2016 be provided, or in the alternative, allegations contained in paragraph 37 of 9 February 2016 judgement [sic] be withdrawn.

101. Order 3 of 15 September 2016 directions hearing be complied with.

102. Permission be granted to plaintiff to record all her Court appearances.

103. Limitation period for defamation claim be extended by the period of 12 months.

104. Cost [sic] orders made in favour of the defendant on 9 February 2016 be dismissed.

105. Proceedings remain on [sic] inactive list until the unresolved issues hereof are resolved.

106. Order for indemnity costs or costs, with interest pursuant to section 100 of Civil Procedure Act 2005 be paid to plaintiff for the entire duration of these interlocutory proceedings to date.

107. Leave be granted to the plaintiff to amend settled third further amended statement of claim to reflect current circumstances of the plaintiff subsequent to which the settled third further amended statement of claim be accepted by the Court as the opponent could make out the claim made against them since 5 March 2015 statement of claim.”

17. To address these issues generally, as can be seen by the orders made on 9 February 2016 and 1 June 2016, I have already refused all of these applications, in some cases more than once. The applications the plaintiff makes are of the “satellite litigation” variety, and do not assist her in getting her claims ready for determination by a contested hearing.

18. To address each of these issues specifically:

1. Orders sought in paragraphs 98, 99 and 107 of the plaintiff’s submissions: The plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed my orders of 24 September 2015 and she cannot now ask me to set aside the Court of Appeal judgment of 16 December 2015, as I do not have the power to do so. It is clear, from the terms of paragraph 107, that the plaintiff is not prepared to amend her statement of claim in accordance with the rulings she unsuccessfully appealed from. As is set out in my judgment below, the question is whether she should be permitted a final chance to do so and, if so, on what terms.

2. Orders sought in paragraphs 100 and 102: I have already rejected the plaintiff’s application for CCTV footage at [55] – [60] of my judgment of 1 June 2016 and I have repeatedly told her that, while she is entitled to seek a copy of the recording of oral proceedings, she is not entitled to record the proceedings themselves. Of all the allegations the plaintiff makes against court staff, her continuing unfounded allegations of corruption and dishonesty by the court reporting service are the most concerning, in my view.

3. Order sought in paragraph 101: It is my understanding, from the Registrar’s orders, that no pro bono lawyer can be found who is prepared to act for the plaintiff, which may in part be attributable to her allegations of corruption and incompetence against the two previous pro bono lawyers. According to correspondence the plaintiff has sent to my associate, the plaintiff is demanding that they leave the profession in disgrace.

4. Order sought in paragraph 103: This request does not even begin to comply with the procedure for an extension of time in defamation proceedings. As I have noted in my earlier judgments, no extension of time can be granted until the pleadings are amended to reflect any cause of action or joinder of a party requiring leave.

5. Orders sought in paragraphs 104 and 106: The costs order I made on 9 February 2016 was of the “costs follow the event” kind, and consistent with the orders of the Court of Appeal, and I decline to set it aside. The plaintiff’s application for indemnity costs for the whole of the proceedings is referred to in my judgment of 1 June 2016 at [61] – [62], where I noted my understanding that the plaintiff was conducting these proceedings as a litigant in person and did not have an unrestricted practising certificate which would enable her to charge legal fees. If so, independently of the lack of merit of the plaintiff’s application, she has no standing to bring such an application, and I propose to dismiss it.

6. Order sought in paragraph 105: This application will be refused for the reasons set out in the remainder of my judgment.

19. As I noted in my judgment of Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 2) at [53], there must come a time when the plaintiff should accept responsibility for her pleadings. It is not the court’s role to settle a pleading: Gunns Ltd v Marr [2005] VSC 251 at [57]; McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 1424 at [35].

20. I take into account that judges in defamation litigation have made a special point of endeavouring to assist litigants in person draft pleadings: see for example YZ v Amazon [2013] NSWSC 1522; YZ v Amazon (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 415; YZ v Amazon (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1130; YZ v Amazon (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 1346; YZ v Amazon (No 5) [2015] NSWSC 1539; YZ v Amazon (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 1951; YZ v Amazon (No 7) [2016] NSWSC 637. This may include taking a “curate’s egg” approach to rescuing that part of the pleadings which can be rescued: Nobarani v Mariconte [2016] NSWCA 214; Pierno v Rixon [2016] NSWSC 297.

21. I also take into account that courts have traditionally taken an extremely cautious approach to the striking out of proceedings for failure to conduct them with expedition, although more recently plaintiffs who display themselves as being a “reluctant gladiator” (Bi v Mourad [2010] NSWCA 17 at [31] per Young JA). The existence of the “reluctant gladiator” is nothing new; this was in fact a phrase which his Honour first used in Waters v United Permanent Building Society Ltd (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Young J, 27 July 1988) and then in Torpey Vander Have Pty Ltd v Mass Constructions Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 263. What has changed over the years, however, has been the court’s willingness to accept this kind of delay.

22. I also take into account that courts have been particularly reluctant to take any action where correspondence by a litigant in person exceeds what might be considered objectively to be reasonable: McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 104; McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 253. Nevertheless, judicial views in this area appear to be changing as well. In Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1722 Bellew J at [24] – [28] relied upon the dissenting judgment of Sackville AJA on this issue rather than the majority decision. I see this as an indication that the continuation to endure the plaintiff’s correspondence in silence and to accede to her continued requests to remain in the Inactive List while she is actively carrying out a campaign of vindictive and insulting correspondence, to be not merely counterproductive but contrary to the provisions of ss 56 – 62 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

23. Finally, I take into account that the plaintiff has suffered the loss of two family members over the past two years and the certificates from medical practitioners, although no fresh material is put forward. However, as I have noted in previous judgments, many of the persons who come before this court are in states of distress, sometimes accompanied by physical disabilities as well.

19. However, it is time that the plaintiff got on with conducting her case. She is sufficiently well to conduct a vigorous correspondence with many persons, and she should be sufficiently well to attend to her pleadings. As her appeal has been dismissed, she must file a further amended statement of claim in accordance with the document attached to my judgment of 24 September 2015 (Exhibit ZZ to the application heard on 24 September 2015), which has been in her possession for almost 18 months.

The nature of the case management orders to be made

25. These proceedings, for the reasons set out above, cannot remain in the Inactive List and must move forward. This brings me to the question of the terms upon which the order for amendment should be made.

26. It is clear from the order sought at paragraph 107 of the plaintiff’s list of requests that she has no intention of complying with the 24 September 2015 orders which she unsuccessfully appealed from. However, given the caution with which courts approach the striking out of entire proceedings, she should be given a last chance to do so. The question is on what terms.

27. Costs penalties are not appropriate. The plaintiff is already the subject of an indemnity costs order made by the New South Wales Court of Appeal: Michail v Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre Inc [2015] NSWCA 396. That does not appear to have influenced the plaintiff. I also note that she has not complied with orders to file an amended statement of claim made on previous occasions.

28. In the circumstances, I consider a peremptory order for the filing of the further amended statement of claim (drafted strictly in accordance with my orders of 24 September 2015, and not as foreshadowed in paragraph 107 of the plaintiff’s request for orders) to be the only way forward with this litigation. Once the plaintiff has taken this step, the claim can move forward so that issues such as the potential joinder of other parties (relevant to potential limitation issues in the defamation claims) can be considered without further delay. The plaintiff is warned, however, that failure to file a pleading in accordance with my 24 September 2015 orders may result in the striking out of these proceedings.

Orders

29. Accordingly the orders I make are as follows:

1. These proceedings removed from the Inactive List.

2. The plaintiff’s applications contained in paragraphs 98 – 107 of her document entitled “Prominent Unresolved Issues for Resolution by Chief Justice of NSW and NSW District Court Chief Justice [sic] by Monday 12 December 2016 and Requested Outcomes” are dismissed.

3. A peremptory order for the plaintiff to file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with my orders of 24 September 2015 by Wednesday 22 February 2017 at 4:00pm.

4. Any applications by the defendant in relation to this pleading (including any failure by the plaintiff to comply with order (3)) are stood over to Thursday 23 February 2017.

5. Costs reserved.

Schedule

Index	Date	Time	Comments
1	7 April 2015	9:04am	Email from the defendant seeking clarification of the Practice Note [This is the first email the defendant sent]
2	7 April 2015	10:01am	My associate forwarded the defendant’s email to me as I was on leave.
3	7 April 2015	11:18am	Plaintiff’s email saying the UCPR and Practice Notes “are clear” and that the Defence is due on 16 April 2015
4	7 April 2015	11:26am	Plaintiff telephones Mr Mok, my associate
5	7 April 2015	11:42am	Email containing correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant, labelled as “Exhibit 1”. This email was sent only to my associate.
6	7 April 2015	11:42am	Email containing “Exhibit 3”. This email was sent only to my associate.
7	7 April 2015	11:42am	Email containing “Exhibit 2”. This email was sent only to my associate.
8	7 April 2015	11:43am	Email containing “Exhibit 4”. This email was sent only to my associate.
9	7 April 2015	11:45am	Email containing “Exhibit 5”. This email was sent only to my associate.
10	7 April 2015	11:48am	Email containing “Final Evidence - Exhibit 6”. This email was sent only to my associate.
11	7 April 2015	11:55am	Mr Mok’s email to the plaintiff informing her to send emails both to the court and opponent and that correspondence should be handed up in court.
12	7 April 2015	12:13pm	Plaintiff’s email saying the defendant has in their possession copies of the emails she sent to me, but that she will resend those previous emails by including the defendant.
13	7 April 2015	12:13pm	Resending “Exhibit 1”
14	7 April 2015	12:14pm	Resending “Exhibit 2”
15	7 April 2015	12:14pm	Resending “Exhibit 3”
16	7 April 2015	12:15pm	Resending “Exhibit 4”
17	7 April 2015	12:15pm	Resending “Exhibit 5”
18	7 April 2015	12:16pm	Resending “Exhibit 6”
19	7 April 2015	8:56pm	“Private & Confidential” email sent only to my associate.
20	7 April 2015	9:00pm	Email in similar terms to the “Private & Confidential” email with parts excised. She says in this email that Clayton Utz “chose to take the matter to her Honour” and that “only copied me on their correspondence of 7 April 2015 to her Honour and did not at any stage copy me on any correspondence /s they sent Her Honour last week.”
21	8 April 2015	12:09pm	My associate wrote to both parties to say any concerns they have they should raise it in open court rather than by email.
16 April 2015	9:30am	Matter listed for directions only (first time in the Defamation List). The orders made on this occasion are as follows: (1) On the application of the plaintiff, and not opposed by the defendant, grant leave to file a further amended statement of claim by 28 May 2015. (2) Defendant to notify the plaintiff by 11 June 2015 of any further objections. (3) Matter stood over for further directions to 18 June 2015 at 9:30am. (4) Stand over the defendant’s notice of motion to 18 June 2015 but note that date is for directions only.
22	11 June 2015	2:53pm	Plaintiff’s email to the court attaching correspondence from Clayton Utz to her dated 26 May and 11 June 2015, which also includes a copy of her CV. She requests the court to advise her which of the letters the court will be proceeding on 18 June 2015.
23	12 June 2015	1:12pm	The plaintiff wrote to Mr Mok attaching the defendant’s complaint that the Further Amended Statement of Claim is “defective and liable to be struck out”. The plaintiff wrote wanting the court to confirm receipt of her email by “close of business today”. (Mr Mok was away ill).
24	12 June 2015	10:11pm	The plaintiff again wrote to my associate attaching inter parte correspondence previously sent to my associate. She also seeks confirmation that my associate is in receipt of her email by 12:00pm Monday 15 June 2015.
25	15 June 2015	9:10am	My associate wrote to the plaintiff saying “Please do not forward correspondence to this court about these issues. These are matters to be raised in open court in the presence of all of the parties.”
26	15 June 2015	9:40am	Plaintiff’s email saying the “restrictions” we indicated applies only to her.
27	15 June 2015	10:04am	My associate wrote to the plaintiff telling the “restrictions” on corresponding with the court apply to all litigants. He also informed her that she should deal with these issues inter parte and not involve the court at all.
28	15 June 2015	10:15am	Plaintiff wishes us to provide reasons “by close of business today” as to why issues she raise were to be dealt with in open court.
29	15 June 2015	10:22am	Plaintiff writes to Mr Mok inviting him to go back to his records and that he will find they defendant “resumed corresponding with this Honourable Court” and that he did not impose restrictions on them.
30	15 June 2015	6:27pm	Plaintiff emailed my associate pointing out what she perceive as issues “causing unnecessary delays which is not in the interest of justice” and saying “I respectfully request that in this situation where this Honourable Court is asked to make a choice between congenial dealings or upholding the interest of justice, this Honourable Court will choose the latter above all else”.
18 June 2015	9:30am	Matter listed for directions only (second time in the Defamation List). Although this listing was for directions only, a judgment was prepared to assist the plaintiff in identifying issues with the statement of claim. The following orders were made: (1) The plaintiff to file and serve a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim by 16 July 2015. (2) Matter stood over for further directions in the Defamation List on Thursday 30 July 2015 at 9:00am.
31	23 June 2015	10:16am	My associate wrote to the parties attaching reasons for judgment: Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre [2015] NSWDC 145.
32	8 July 2015	10:43am	Plaintiff wrote saying due to private issues, she requires more time for the statement of claim.
33	9 July 2015	11:27am	My associate wrote to the parties extending time for filing and service of the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim.
34	9 July 2015	12:00pm	Clayton Utz wrote asking if the listing on 30 July should be adjourned. [This is the defendant’s second email to the court.]
35	10 July 2015	10:36am	My associate wrote to the parties confirming the 30 July listing.
30 July 2015	9:00am	Matter listed for directions only (third time in the Defamation List). The orders made on this occasion are as follows: (1) The plaintiff is to provide a list of dates at which she worked at the Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre to the solicitors for the defendant in 21 days. (2) Refer the plaintiff to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for the limited purposes at this stage of obtaining advice as well as drafting and settling a Third Further Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to Part 7 Division 9 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). (3) The plaintiff to file and serve a Third Further Amended Statement of Claim on or before 28 August 2015. (4) Matter stood over to the Defamation List on Thursday 3 September 2015 at 9:00am.
36	30 July 2015	12:24pm	Plaintiff wrote seeking clarification of the directions hearing in the morning.
37	30 July 2015	12:46pm	My associate wrote to the plaintiff to inform her Gibson DCJ is not prepared to engage in email correspondence regarding the directions hearing in the morning.
38	30 July 2015	12:59pm	Plaintiff wrote back insisting a response from Gibson DCJ.
39	31 July 2015	9:06am	Plaintiff wrote an email insisting Gibson DCJ to “read this email”.
40	31 July 2015	10:53am	My associate wrote to the plaintiff informing her Gibson DCJ is not prepared to enter into email correspondence and that the plaintiff should consult the pro bono lawyer to whom she was to be referred.
41	31 July 2015	11:24am	Plaintiff wrote to say she will contact the Registry regarding execution of the 30 July orders.
42	2 August 2015	5:51pm	Plaintiff’s email entitled “Grievances and Explanation” where she says “I do not require a response”.
43	5 August 2015	6:05pm	Plaintiff’s email about “UCPR r 7.8” where she has conduct of the proceedings. Plaintiff also tells Mr Mok it is not necessary for him to approach Gibson DCJ to change the directions date (although changes to the directions date was never raised).
44	6 August 2015	9:59am	My associate wrote to the plaintiff informing her matters should be raised in open court.
45	6 August 2015	10:14am	Plaintiff wrote saying her last email was “out of courtesy” and “there is absolutely no response necessary”.
46	6 August 2015	10:49am	Plaintiff wrote saying she is very “disappointed”.
47	6 August 2015	6:27pm	Plaintiff wrote saying “I am now of the view that I brought my dispute to a Court culture where issues of silently accepted practices such as a defendant who has legal representation gets unlimited access to the judiciary, exist”.
48	20 August 2015	9:42am	Plaintiff says her Honour’s orders were “not read out in open court”.
49	20 August 2015	9:51am	Plaintiff forwarded an email from Clayton Utz establishing context.
50	20 August 2015	9:52am	Another email from the plaintiff forwarding defendant’s correspondence.
51	20 August 2015	9:53am	Another email from the plaintiff forwarding defendant’s email.
52	20 August 2015	9:56am	Another email from the plaintiff forwarding defendant’s email, saying the defendant was “being given complete conduct of proceedings”.
53	20 August 2015	12:03pm	Plaintiff’s email requesting recording on 30 July 2015 to be played in open court on the next directions hearing. Plaintiff also says she has “vulnerability”, and that there is a “power imbalance that leans heavily in favour of the judiciary”. She also says the defendant is “capitalising on the court’s culture of silently accepted practices which led to the opponent being given complete conduct of the proceedings”.
54	20 August 2015	1:44pm	My associate wrote to the plaintiff detailing how many emails he had received from the respective parties and advising her that Gibson DCJ will deal with this matter in open court.
55	20 August 2015	2:17pm	Plaintiff wrote to my associate saying “do not create noise (i.e. “Sent emails” statistics)”. She repeats there are “silently accepted practices”. She requests the 18 June and 30 July 2015 recordings to be replayed in open court.
56	20 August 2015	2:39pm	My associate wrote to the plaintiff saying no further correspondence will be entered into with her and she should make her requests in open court.
57	20 August 2015	2:39pm	Plaintiff wrote again disputing how many times she has rung the court.
58	20 August 2015	2:42pm	Plaintiff wrote saying “I will do. Please have the recordings ready.”
59	20 August 2015	4:53pm	Plaintiff wrote seeking “the court’s agreement” to nine (9) bullet points, which essentially relate to what will occur in the next directions hearing, seeking the court not “provoke” her “in any way, shape or form”. The following: “7. Court recordings for 18 June 2015 and 30 July 2015 will be ready to be played in open court, as I will indeed request for them to be played in dh [“directions hearing”] in open court. 8. The issues will only be addressed in dh in open court and dh will be recorded as per usual. 9. I also request that I would be permitted to record dh in open court in the event any technical difficulty becomes an issue on the day.” This email was not replied to.
60	21 August 2015	2:27am	Plaintiff alleges the defendant “communicates with the court whenever, wherever and however they please in my absence” and the court “rewards this wrong and improper conduct”. She reiterates my associate is “creating irrelevant noise”, asking “what are the court’s intentions and hidden agendas… on 3 September 2015?” She goes on to say “once bitten, twice shy” and that the directions hearing are “not only unbearable, they are indeed beyond suffocating to say the least”.
61	24 August 2015	3:18pm	Plaintiff sent in her Third Further Amended Statement of Claim. She again says “Clayton Utz currently has complete conduct of the proceedings”. She insists the defendant “to file their defence on or before Monday 21 September 2015”.
62	1 September 2015	2:49pm	Plaintiff sends in submission for the directions hearing on 3 September, as well as correspondence from the defendant.
63	1 September 2015	9:34pm	Plaintiff’s sends in the defendant’s letter in response to her first email.
64	1 September 2015	10:23pm	Plaintiff correctly states the court has information about the pro bono lawyer.
65	2 September 2015	12:07am	Plaintiff sends in her second set of submissions for the 3 September directions hearing.
3 September 2015	9:00am	Matter listed for directions only (fourth time in the Defamation List). The following orders were made on this occasion: (1) Plaintiff’s notice of motion is set down for hearing as a 1-2 hour motion on Thursday 24 September 2015 at 10:00am. (2) Direct the defendant to serve full submissions on the plaintiff and a hardcopy provided to the court by 14 September 2015. (3) Direct the plaintiff to serve full submissions on the defendant and a hardcopy provided to the court by 22 September 2015. (4) Each party is entitled to provide one set of submissions only and there must be no correspondence with the court of any kind, or telephone calls, prior to the hearing on 24 September 2015. (5) Costs reserved.
66	14 September 2015	5:27pm	The defendant wrote attaching an Amended Notice of Motion, submissions and an affidavit. [This is the defendant’s third email to the court.]
67	22 September 2015	7:17pm	The defendant wrote attaching a List of Authorities for the 24 September 2015 argument. [This is the defendant’s fourth email to the court.]
68	23 September 2015	12:29pm	Plaintiff sends in her submissions for the 24 September argument.
24 September 2015	The defendant’s Amended Notice of Motion for summary dismissal of the statement of claim heard.
69	24 September 2015	4:45pm	Plaintiff wrote saying the orders made on 24 September are not yet online.
70	24 September 2015	8:43pm	My associate sent an email containing my judgment dated 24 September 2015 to the parties: Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 2) [2015] NSWDC 214.
71	24 September 2015	9:57pm	Plaintiff wrote complaining that Clayton Utz “was busy with their professional misconduct causing [sic] unnecessary delays to this proceeding and their abuse of process”.
72	25 September 2015	10:19am	Plaintiff wrote saying she has received the judgment and that she “oppose the trial by ambush of yesterday” and that she will appeal. She also says “I recorded the hearings of 3 September 2015 and 24 September 2015 and will always gladly replay them if requested.”
73	30 September 2015	11:26am	Plaintiff wrote to my associate asking for a refund of her application for a copy of the judgment (which she lodged online). She states that she “was advised that [the Registry is] unable to action my application for refund because the file is with her Honour and the registry does not even have the file, which in itself is irregular.”
74	30 September 2015	11:39am	My associate wrote to the plaintiff saying he has returned the file to the Registry a week ago and asked the plaintiff to contact the Listing Manager.
75	30 September 2015	12:53pm	The plaintiff wrote to my associate, the Online Registry, and the Listing Manager requesting a refund ASAP.
9 December 2015	The Court of Appeal heard the plaintiff’s appeal.
16 December 2015	The Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Michail v Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre Inc [2015] NSWCA 396.
76	24 December 2015	3:42pm	The plaintiff wrote saying the Court of Appeal hearing “appeared to be staged” and that she “will not comply with the orders made in the decision and I will stay proceedings until this lawless situation passes, and I am out of the bubble I was forcibly thrown into.” She states: “1. The hearing was before one judge and one acting judge not three judges as per usual 2. The decision is authored by both Justices Leeming and Emmett because it was heard by both their Honours as opposed to being heard by three judges as per usual 3. The hearing appeared to be staged due to the above two paragraphs and Justice Leeming on a few occasions repeating to me that I am “passionate” which is the description my friend Stefanie used to describe me in our personal catch-up 4. Further, Justice Emmett would laugh as he was asking Counsel for the respondent’s questions, because he was unable to act the role and/or script he was assigned.”
5 January 2016	The plaintiff filed a notice of motion returnable on 25 January 2016 seeking a stay of proceedings and appointment of a pro bono barrister.
77	20 January 2016	3:18pm	The plaintiff wrote saying “Ms Case admitted in the hearing of 9 December 2015 at the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (hearing) that the opponent have been orally communicating with this Court in my absence” and that she requests “these court acceptable practices cease for the remainder of this proceedings to avoid the miscarriage of justice”.
78	20 January 2016	9:55pm	My associate wrote to the plaintiff saying she must serve any documents she proposes to rely upon on the defendant prior to the hearing on 25 January 2016.
79	21 January 2016	3:13am	The plaintiff replies to my associate’s email by resending her email of 20 January 2016.
25 January 2016	10:00am	Plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 5 January 2016 listed for hearing.
80	25 January 2016	2:09pm	The plaintiff wrote again saying she left court early because she was subjected to “unfairness and injustice”, as well as “oppression, trials by ambush and inquisition”. She also makes an application for an extension of the limitation period for her defamation claim.
81	25 January 2016	4:05pm	The plaintiff wrote requesting “her Honour Justice Gibson removes herself from presiding over my matter due to the events of 16 April 2015, 30 July 2015 to 25 January 2016 inclusive”.
82	27 January 2016	10:57am	The plaintiff wrote saying she “need to have [her] own recordings to protect [her] legal interests” and does not “believe reporting services accurately transcribes proceedings”. She questions “why wouldn’t her Honour give me express permission” to record.
83	27 January 2016	2:20pm	The plaintiff sent an email to my associate, which was not sent to the defendant, entitled “PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL Apology”.
84	8 February 2016	9:40am	My associate wrote to the parties informing them that these proceedings are listed for judgment on 9 February 2016.
85	8 February 2016	9:59am	The plaintiff rang my associate asking if she could be excused from attending court to receive judgment. My associate asked Ms Michail to write to the court, with a copy sent to her opponent.
86	8 February 2016	10:05am	The plaintiff wrote requesting the judgment to be emailed to her on 9 February 2016.
87	9 February 2016	10:18am	My associate wrote to the parties attaching a PDF version of my judgment in Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 3). The orders made are as follows: (1) Grant order (1) of the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 8 January 2016 and stay the current proceedings for a period of 4 months, namely until Wednesday 25 May 2016. (2) Matter listed in the Defamation List on Thursday 26 May 2016 at 9:30am. (3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the Amended Notice of Motion of 14 September 2015. (4) Decline to make Order 2 in the Notice of Motion. (5) Decline to hear the plaintiff’s emailed request for a 6-month extension of the limitation period in relation to the four defamation claims. (6) Plaintiff’s application for me to recuse myself for bias refused. (7) Costs of the notice of motion filed on 8 January 2016 reserved. (8) A copy of these reasons to be forwarded to the Registrar, Court of Appeal.
88	29 April 2016	1:03am	The plaintiff wrote saying “by way of service, Affidavit of 28 April 2016 in response to Judge Gibson's written judgement [sic] of 9 February 2016, which contains amongst other matters, application for Judge Gibson to recuse herself and application for extension of limitation period”. This email contains a 64-page affidavit.
89	5 May 2016	3:05pm	The plaintiff wrote seeking to appear by telephone, as well as “express permission to record” proceedings on 26 May 2016. She once again attaches her 64-page affidavit.
90	6 May 2016	12:12am	The plaintiff wrote attaching her 64-page affidavit, with another document headed “written submissions”, seeking orders for Gibson DCJ to recuse herself, express permission to record proceedings, that she be given CCTV footage of court proceedings, extension of limitation period, a referral to a barrister on the pro bono panel, as well as indemnity costs against the “defendants” to be payable forthwith
91	11 May 2016	11:34am	The plaintiff wrote to the Registry requesting attendance by telephone on 26 May 2016. She also stated “Please advise also if any supporting documentation is required for this arrangement to take place.”
92	11 May 2016	11:49am	My associate wrote to the plaintiff saying she can appear by telephone link. He also stated that the plaintiff “[does] not have permission to record the proceedings. If you wish to challenge the accuracy of the transcript, you may ask Court Reporting to provide you with their recording of the proceedings.”
93	11 May 2016	3:38pm	The plaintiff wrote providing her best contact numbers.
94	12 May 2016	9:22am	The plaintiff wrote to the court “to record [her] objection to the court’s decision to not permit [her] to record proceedings”, saying “courtrooms are left open for legally represented opponents for their unsupervised usage”, that “there is no harm in having an independent backup recording”, that there may be “an issue of authenticity” and that she wishes her objections “wont [sic] be taken personally”.
95	12 May 2016	10:35am	My associate reiterated that the plaintiff does not have permission to record and that her claims about courtroom supervision and court transcription services are without any factual basis. My associate invited Ms Michail to raise these issues in open court and not in uninvited correspondence.
96	12 May 2016	11:03am	The plaintiff wrote saying the issues she raises in correspondence have been “continuously silenced, interrupted, evaded and oppressed”. She says Gibson DCJ’s decision not to allow her to record proceedings was made without “any reasons”.
97	12 May 2016	4:17pm	My associate referred Ms Michail to s 9 Court Securities Act 2005 (NSW) and the definition of “court premises” in s 4 of that Act. My associate reiterated that the plaintiff does not have permission to record. He also pointed out to Ms Michail that Reporting Services Branch holds Crown copyright over court transcripts.
98	12 May 2016	7:13pm	Ms Michail wrote saying her objection to Gibson DCJ’s decision not to grant her permission to record remains. She also enquired of Court 13D’s telephone number as a “backup/contingency plan for any risks that may be associated with the court not being able to get through to [her] on the day”.
99	20 May 2016	9:20pm	The plaintiff once again requests the telephone number for Court 13D. She once again attaches her “written submissions”. She states that the purpose of her written submissions was that “all the points raised in the attached document are equally important and I will be making them all in open court on 26 May 2016 - I would not be able to choose a point over another, so I would appreciate it if I am not asked to only state the most important point in open court on 26 May 2016. I respectfully request that I would be listened to without interruptions as I make my oral submissions in open court”. She also pointed out that Clayton Utz is no longer acting for the defendant and hence she did not send this email to Clayton Utz. She did, however, send this email to Justice Leeming and Acting Justice Emmett’s associates.
100	23 May 2016	5:55pm	My associate wrote to the plaintiff asking for her confirmation that her submissions had been given to the defendant.
101	23 May 2016	6:15pm	The plaintiff replied to my associate’s email saying she wrote those submissions “out of [her] own accord” and that there was “no procedural and/or ethical obligation for [her] to do this. Further, it is against the legal profession act for [her] to contact the defendants directly and the address on the Notice of Cease [sic] to Act provides the defendant’s direct contact address”. She further says that she “would be in breach of the legal profession act should [she] act on the court’s below advice”. She went on to say that she has asked the court twice for the court’s telephone number to call on 26 May 2016 and she notes the court did not respond to her.
102	23 May 2016	6:48pm	My associate wrote to Ms Michail saying she will not be in breach of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) or the Legal Profession Act for her to contact the defendant. My associate also stated that her application cannot proceed because she has not provided her submissions to the defendant and that the matter was listed in the Defamation List for directions only in any event. My associate informed Ms Michail that we do not give out our courtroom’s telephone number for security reasons.
103	23 May 2016	7:10pm	The plaintiff wrote saying her written submissions had been provided to Clayton Utz in April 2016. She also said the defendant now has legal representation but she does not know who they are.
104	23 May 2016	10:07pm	The plaintiff wrote requesting my associate to provide her with the relevant provisions which states that she will not be in breach of the “legal profession uniform law” if she wrote to the defendant direct in circumstances where the Clayton Utz filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act, saying “You didn’t provide the specific sections and subsections”. She went on to say that she is “not under any obligation to provide the defendants &/or their legal representatives with [her] oral submissions in the sbence [sic] of court orders made to this effect unless [my associate] point [her] to specific provisions, authorities, principles, etc. that would direct [her] to do so.” She went on to ask “I don’t know what to make of your written email correspondence of even date. What is the court’s real reason and true agenda behind sending today’s email correspondence? Never mind, I learnt through my experiences with the court to date, that the real reasons and hidden agendas behind their actions, decisions, etc eventually do come out to the surface.” Further she states “Please also provide me with the written court security requirements that state that courtroom numbers are not to be provided to persons outside the court. I apologise but I am not at all inclined to just take your word for it and please don't take this personally.”
105	25 May 2016	12:54am	The plaintiff wrote the following email to my associate “I refer to my email correspondence of 23 May 2016 at 10:07 PM and last paragraph and repeat my request for written form (i.e. Legislation, regulation, etc.) of your claim made in your email of 23 May 2016 at 6:53 PM (also below) with respect to the court providing me with direct courtroom number to contact the court on, on 26 May 2016. In the absence of such, I again repeat my previous repeated requests and would be pleased if the court would provide me with direct courtroom phone number to contact the court on in the event the court is unable to get through to me on the day.”
26 May 2016	The matter was heard in the Defamation List.
106	31 May 2016	1:58pm	My associate wrote to the parties informing them the matter will be listed on 1 June 2016 for judgment
107	31 May 2016	2:11pm	The plaintiff wrote asking to be excused from attendance on 1 June 2016
108	1 June 2016	10:19am	My associate wrote to the parties attaching a copy of my judgment in Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 4). The orders made are as follows: (1) Plaintiff’s application for me to recuse myself for bias refused. (2) Subject to order (3) below, pursuant to r 7.36 UCPR the plaintiff is referred to the Registrar, District Court of New South Wales, for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance, in accordance with her stated request for a pro bono barrister to conduct the whole of the interlocutory stage of these proceedings, with the plaintiff acting as instructing solicitor. (3) If the Registrar is unable to arrange legal assistance for the plaintiff within 28 days after the litigant’s referral, the Registrar may make an order terminating the litigant’s referral. (4) These proceedings stood over for further directions to 9:00am on Thursday 28 July 2016, such directions to include the filing of any amended statement of claim if not filed beforehand and, if an amended statement of claim has been filed, a timetable for the hearing of any application by the plaintiff for an extension of time to join any new defendant to the proceedings. (5) Costs reserved.
109	1 June 2016	12:31pm	The plaintiff wrote acknowledging receipt of the judgment, saying she "reserve my right to respond when I regain my full capacity".
110	1 June 2016	8:31pm	The plaintiff wrote saying Gibson DCJ completed ignored her incapacity and specialist psychiatrist certificate, that she is entitled to receive assistance form the pro bono panel due to her “relapse into depression”. She also says that Gibson DCJ “did not condition for Registrar to terminate my referral to barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for assistance when she made orders to the same effect on 30 July 2015”. She adds “I reserve the right to respond to the remainder of Judge Gibson's questionable judgement in due course as I am currently unable to do so due to my relapse into depression”.
111	1 June 2016	11:37pm	The plaintiff wrote complaining about Gibson DCJ’s “questionable judgement [sic]”. She states that she relapsed into depression on 25 January 2016 and “therefore I couldn’t bring a detailed application for her to recuse herself”. She complains that Gibson DCJ “was able to write a more involved judgment on 24 September 2015 when I informed her that I was appealing her decision in the Supreme Court of NSW, yet waited two weeks prior to releasing her judgement of 9 February 2016 which contained serious allegations that were not stated in open court”. She went on to say “In any event, judge Gibson is a judge and knows that when she makes such serious allegations that harm a legal professional reputation which is their livelihood, she bears the onus of proof”. She requests Gibson DCJ makes all the orders she sought in the emails she wrote since 28 April 2016. She also says that she reserves her right to “provide a more detailed response to judge Gibson’s questionable judgement of even date in due course when my relapse into depression condition improves”.
112	2 June 2016	8:50am	Assistant Registrar Grew wrote to say Ms Michail was referred to a barrister “this morning” and that “it remains to be seen whether or not he accepts the referral”.
113	26 July 2016	2:51pm	Mr XXX, pro bono barrister acting for the plaintiff, informs the court that the parties are exploring settlement, wishing to vacate the 28 July 2016 directions date and have the matter relisted on 4 August 2016.
114	27 July 2016	11:11am	Mr XXX wrote to my associate again wanting to see if orders have been made in chambers
28 July 2016	The matter came before the Defamation List. Matter was stood over to 25 August 2016, as the parties were exploring settlement
25 August 2016	The matter came before the Defamation List. Matter was stood over to 15 September 2016 for further directions.
15 September 2016	The matter came before the Defamation List. The orders made on this occasion are as follows: The Court notes that: (1) The barrister who accepted a pro bono referral under UCPR Rule 7.36 has conveyed to the Registrar his intention to return the brief in accordance with the Bar Rules; (2) That barrister proposes to cease to provide legal assistance to the Plaintiff pursuant to UCPR Rule 7.39(1), upon a further barrister accepting the referral contemplated by order 3 below. The Court orders and directs that: (3) Pursuant to UCPR Rule 7.36, there be a further referral to a barrister on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance for the Plaintiff, in respect of the whole of the interlocutory stage of these proceedings with the Plaintiff acting as instructing solicitor. (4) Proceedings stood over to the Defamation List on Thursday 6 October 2016.
115	15 September 2016	11:11am	The plaintiff wrote complaining, inter alia, about settlement discussions saying she “waive[s] [her] confidentiality privilege”. She also complains about the defendant not acting in good faith and causing delays.
116	19 September 2016	7:03pm	Kennedys, the defendant’s solicitors, wrote disputing Ms Michail’s email of 15 September 2016
117	19 September 2016	10:38pm	The plaintiff wrote again complaining about the defendant’s “bad faith”. This email also contains a note to the defendant saying “All is in order from my angle”.
118	4 October 2016	10:15am	The plaintiff wrote to my associate, our assistant registrars and the defendant complaining that the Registrar did not refer her matter to a new pro bono barrister and requests an adjournment of the 6 October 2016 due to her sister having passed away. She says that she “will not be able to handle the proceedings without the pro bono barrister’s assistance”.
119	4 October 2016	11:17am	My associate wrote to the plaintiff saying in the circumstances the 6 October 2016 listing will be vacated. He added “Rather than having the Court to impose a date on the parties, the parties should attempt to agree on the next return date. If the parties cannot agree to a date by 4:00pm on Thursday 6 October 2016, this matter will be placed in the Inactive List with a review date of Thursday 3 November 2016 in the Defamation List. If the parties can bring the matter back prior to that date, the parties should write to myself in chambers setting out this proposed earlier return date.”
120	4 October 2016	11:32am	Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie wrote detailing his and Assistant Registrar Grew’s attempts in finding a pro bono barrister for Ms Michail.
121	4 October 2016	11:46am	Gibson DCJ replied to Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie asking if he could contact the Legal Assistance Manager of the NSW Bar Association, in order to assist the plaintiff in obtaining a pro bono barrister.
122	4 October 2016	12:01pm	Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie wrote saying he will contact the Bar Association “today” and continue to search for a barrister to accept this referral
123	5 October 2016	12:25pm	Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie wrote to say he has contacted the NSW Bar Association.
124	5 October 2016	1:14pm	Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie wrote to the plaintiff informing her that Gibson DCJ has suggested he contact the NSW Bar Association regarding this referral. Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie also explained to the plaintiff that the NSW Bar Association requires her to fill out a Legal Assistance Referral Scheme form.
6 October 2016	The following order was made in chambers: (1) Matter placed in the Inactive List with a notional review date of 3 November 2016.
125	18 October 2016	10:42pm	The plaintiff wrote to my associate saying she was informed by Mr Burgess of the NSW Bar Association, as well as checking independently on the Online Registry (not JusticeLink), that the matter is listed on 3 November 2016 and that the matter is “active”.
126	19 October 2016	2:05pm

127	19 October 2016	4:33pm	Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie wrote to the plaintiff saying this is her third referral to the pro bono panel and explained in general how pro bono referrals are made. He noted that the plaintiff has written to say the NSW Bar Association was unable to assist, and explained that his understanding was that the NSW Bar Association “have not come to a final position about the referral as yet”.
128	19 October 2016	6:00pm	The plaintiff wrote to Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie, my associate and the NSW Bar Association saying Gibson DCJ’s order for a referral to the pro bono panel has not been executed.
129	19 October 2016	11:34pm	The plaintiff wrote to Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie, my associate, the NSW Bar Association, Kennedys, Clayton Utz, Ms AAA and Mr XXX. Amongst other things, she complains that the pro bono referral order has not been executed. She also complains about her current situation, as she has lost two precious family members in 16 months. She states that “This huge loss makes me even more determined to win the war”.
130	20 October 2016	5:49pm	The plaintiff wrote to Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie, my associate, the NSW Bar Association, the Court of Appeal Registry, the District Court Registry, Kennedys, Clayton Utz, Ms AAA and Mr XXX. She says that the NSW Bar Association has requested her to provide them with Mr XXX’s advice and that she is under no obligations to do so. She says there is a “’blame Nancy Michail’ game” going on. She also complains about losing her loved ones, which makes her “even more determined to win this war”. She adds “I am adamant not to let this precious time that I could've had with my loved ones prior to their departure which was wasted due to the opponent's well established connections go astray. I am doing this for many reasons, most important are to grief and in their honour”.
131	21 October 2016	12:56pm	Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie wrote to the plaintiff saying since 28 days have passed since the date of referral, he is making an order terminating the referral for pro bono assistance.
132	21 October 2016	2:14pm	The plaintiff wrote to Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie complaining he has not executed the referral order, stating it was the Court that has wasted the time.
133	21 October 2016	4:30pm	Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie replied to the plaintiff saying she can seek a review of his order terminating the referral by filing a notice of motion accompanied by an affidavit in support pursuant to r 49.19 UCPR.
134	21 October 2016	4:43pm	The plaintiff wrote to Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie, my associate, the Court of Appeal Registrars Shared Mailbox and the Criminal Court of Appeal Registrar, saying she is not seeking a review. She states that there is an “intentional lack of compliance of [sic] behalf of the Court with it’s [sic] own orders”. She queried “If the Court does not comply with it's [sic] own orders, how would they expect the public to do so?” She adds “I would be pleased if the Court would comply with it's [sic] orders and stops it's continuous and persistent actions that clearly undermine public trust and confidence in the Court, oaths of Honour, precious words such as 'honesty and integrity' which were once upon a time valuable currency and now suffer from inflation as they appear to be given away so easily. I hope I am not sounding German [sic] in this email.”
135	21 October 2016	10:56pm	The plaintiff wrote complaining about Assistant Registrar Fukuda-Oddie for terminating the pro bono referral, saying “the Court has been unsuccessful in fulfilling it's [sic] obligation”
136	22 October 2016	9:31am	The plaintiff wrote complaining about the defendant having connections with the Labour Party and the Greens, saying this has “interfered in a negative way with the conduct of current proceedings and proceedings at the Court of Appeal of NSW”. She complains of Ms AAA having “a conflict of interest”. She complains of Mr XXX having “acted both unlawfully and unethically”. She further complains about the court not releasing CCTV footage of proceedings. She also complains of “hostile behaviour from all involved in this case, including but not limited to registry staff, in both Courts”. This email was sent to the persons (in order): Chief Justice, the Chief Judge, my associate, various Local and District Registrars and Assistant Registrars, the Registrar of the Criminal Court of Appeal, the NSW Bar Association, Mr XXX, Clayton Utz, Ms AAA, Justice Leeming’s tipstave, Justice McClellan’s associate, the District Court Civil Registry, Kennedys, Ms Case and Reporting Services Branch.
137	22 October 2016	7:20pm	The plaintiff sends another emailing complaining about various things, including the Court of Appeal Registrars, how to perceive there to be communication between Gibson DCJ and the defendant (note – this is in relation to an application where she left midway), she asserts my associate as having “familiarity” with Ms Moore, saying my associate refused to provide her with Court 13D’s telephone number, as well as saying my associate was in the wrong when communicating with Kennedys about my handing down judgment on 1 June 2016. She says “Basically all involved have played the 'blame Nancy Michail for our actions' game and 'we can do so as long as she is kept in the dark regarding the fact that Labor and Greens parties are running the show from backstage' game.” This email was sent to the same persons as her previous email.
138	28 October 2016	11:17am	The plaintiff wrote asking if she could appear by telephone on 3 November 2016.
139	28 October 2016	11:46am	My associate replied to the plaintiff asking her to provide her best contact telephone on 3 November 2016.
140	28 October 2016	1:33pm	The plaintiff replied providing a landline and her mobile number.
141	31 October 2016	8:15pm	The plaintiff wrote attaching a document which “focused on the prominent unresolved issues” for the 3 November 2016 “review hearing”. This email was sent to the Court and the defendant’s legal representatives. This letter consists of complaints about: • the defendant’s “prominent political connections”; • “abuse of court processes” by the defendant, the Court, and the pro bono referrals she has had; • “lack of transparency of the Courts”; • lack of “authenticity of court” recording or transcript; • Unavailability of in court CCTV footage; • “Familiarity of the Court with defendant’s past and present legal representatives”; and, • “Non-compliance of the Court with it’s [sic] own orders”. Under the heading “Consequences of Major Stakeholders’ Actions”, she complains: • judicial oaths, honesty and integrity are undermined; • courts cannot provide justice and safety to aggrieved litigants; • the plaintiff was mentally and emotionally manipulated and abused; • the plaintiff encountered harassing, embarrassing, hostile, aggressive and manipulative conduct; • the plaintiff encountered oppressive behaviour and was subjected to undue influence and duress; • her mental and emotional health and wellbeing have deteriorated; • her reputation and claims are negatively affected; • Due to the litigation she could not spend time with her father and sister. This document also contains short minutes of orders which the plaintiff seeks.
3 November 2016	9:00am	Matter listed in the Defamation List. The only order made was as follows: (1) At the request of the plaintiff, leave the matter in the Inactive List until Thursday 9 February 2017.
142	3 November 2016	12:27pm	The plaintiff wrote a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of NSW and the Chief Judge of the District Court and copied to my associate, Justice Leeming and Justice McClellan’s chambers, the Registrars and Registries of the District and Supreme Court, the Bar Association, her previous pro bono barristers, RSB Client Services and the defendant’s previous and existing lawyers. She complains that she was “gaslighted” during this litigation process and asks “Why sell so cheaply what is most valuable (i.e. trust and confidence in the Courts, oaths of 'Honour' and 'honesty and integrity' assumed characteristic)? For what? For whose sakes?? For the sake of a well connected bully/bunch of bullies?” She went on to quote the character John Proctor in Arthur Miller’s novel The Crucible “You are all pulling heaven down to raise up a whore!”
143	6 November 2016	5:04pm	The plaintiff sent an email to the Bathurst CJ, Price J, my associate, Leeming J’s tipstaff, McClellan J’s associate and Judicial Registrar Howard. She attaches a document headed “Prominent Unresolved Issues for Resolution by Chief Justice of NSW and NSW District Court Chief Justice by Monday 12 December 2016 and Requested Outcomes”. This document is largely in similar terms as her 31 October 2016 attachment. In addition to what she has sent out in her 31 October attachment, she complains about the NSW Court of Appeal, as well as saying the Supreme Court Registry had been hostile, aggressive and unreasonable. This email was not sent to the defendant.
144	6 November 2016	5:37pm	In addition to her email at 5:04pm, the plaintiff wrote asking the Chief Justice to award costs in her favour in the Court of Appeal proceedings. She asks the Chief Justice and Chief Judge to respond to her “prominent unresolved issues” by 12 December 2016. This email was not sent to the defendant.
145	8 November 2016	7:00pm	The plaintiff wrote to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal saying it is “unfortunate that the Court does not wish to resolve the serious and prominent issues within it considering the fact that this is an unprecedented case where the proceedings were conducted on the basis of involvement of politicians not on the basis of justice, fairness and law”. She says she will “take the matter accordingly through the only appropriate channel available”. This email was sent to the Court of Appeal’s Registrars, Chief Justice Bathurst’s Associate, this court’s Chief Judge’s Associate and Judicial Registrar, my Associate, Justice McClellan’s Associate and Justice Leeming’s Associate. This email was not sent to the defendant.
146	9 November 2016	6:28pm	The plaintiff wrote saying the District Court and the Court of Appeal cannot expect the public to follow due process when “Mr EH and Ms JG are able to invoke the Court's unjust, unfair and unprincipled actions by way of simple communications, potentially a mere phone call”. She also says this has costed “the expense of taxpayers and of course at the expense of all what is valuable -- public trust and confidence in Courts, oaths of 'Honour', and 'honesty and integrity' of judicial officers and officers of the Court.” This email was sent to the Court of Appeal’s Registrars, Chief Justice Bathurst’s Associate, our court’s Chief Judge’s Associate, our Judicial Registrar, my Associate, Justice McClellan’s Associate and Justice Leeming’s Associate. This email was not sent to the defendant.
147	11 November 2016	5:11pm	The plaintiff again complains about no one responding to her email and trying to gaslight her. This is followed by several Biblical references. She went on to request a review on the costs order made by the Court of Appeal, as well as to “see if it is at all legally possible to have these outcomes granted without having to follow due process especially that right now I am trying to focus on recovery and grieving”. By “these outcome”, she meant, inter alia, overturning the Court of Appeal’s 16 December 2015 decision, setting aside previous costs orders in the Court of Appeal, proceedings to remain in the Inactive List, have “prominent unresolved issues” resolved and be granted leave to “amend settled third further amended statement of claim reflect current circumstances” and to be “accepted” by the court. This email was sent to the Court of Appeal’s Registrars, Chief Justice Bathurst’s Associate, our Chief Judge’s Associate, our Judicial Registrar, my Associate, Justice McClellan’s Associate and Justice Leeming’s Associate. This email was not sent to the defendant.
148	12 November 2016	11:33am	In another long email to the Court of Appeal’s Registrars, Chief Justice Bathurst’s Associate, our Chief Judge’s Associate, our Judicial Registrar, my Associate, Justice McClellan’s Associate and Justice Leeming’s Associate, the plaintiff wanted to clarify “assumptions” the court has made about her, saying “the assumed witch *smiles*”. She wanted to clarify her behaviour in court, as well as how Ms AAA came to “settle” her statement of claim.
149	25 November 2016	6:37am	The plaintiff wrote questioning “Why would [the defendant] not let justice take it's [sic] course instead of relying on their political connections (i.e. EH and JG) to get away with their unlawful, unfair, unjust, unprincipled and inequitable actions?” She went on to say “Judge Gibson attempted to excuse the opponent's conduct by stating that this is an adversarial system. Our adversarial system takes place in Court not behind the scenes where one party (in this situation, this party is me) is kept in the dark regarding the back scene operations and only happened to stumble across them when I came across NC's twitter account, which in turn then empowered me to act accordingly instead of being mentally and emotionally abused and manipulated (i.e. gaslighted)”. This email was sent to the same list of court personnel as previous emails, but the defendant was not copied on the email.
150	3 December 2016	2:11pm	The plaintiff wrote an extensive email wanting to “establish” certain facts and says if things are not actioned, she will take this matter to ICAC. She wrote “I will not know for sure unless I knock the door. If politicians claws are also able to influence ICAC as they are able to do with the independent arm of the judiciary, I will knock another door, and another, until this matter is resolved.” She also says she was “abused and humiliated by even Geoff (front NSW District Court Registry staff), and 1300 support staff, A. I was a laughing stock to many and things did not ease up at NSW Court of Appeal either.” This email was sent to: • The Hon EH MP; • The Hon JG MP; • Various personnel at the NSW Police; • Various personnel with a Community Legal Centre email address; • The defendant’s current and previous solicitors; • Various Judges’ Chambers, including the Chief Justice, Chief Judge, Justice Leeming, Justice McClellan and Judge Gibson; • The Court of Appeal Registrars and the District Court Judicial Registrar; • Ms AAA and Mr XXX; and • Several NSW Bar Association emails. This email also included other correspondence. In an email dated 26 November 2016, the plaintiff requested the following action to be taken by 5 December 2016: “1. EH and JG to resign from office due to their corruption. This resignation be announced in a press conference and they are to give the following reasons: "I resign from office due to not being a fit and proper person who holds the qualities required to continue in the service of the Australian public and to remain in this office. 2. NM, KB, MM and DG to resign from their respective positions in Mount Druitt and Area Community Legal Centre Inc. due to being health hazardous bullies and corrupt individuals 3. Constable S and Inspector M to resign from their positions with Mount Druitt police station due to consenting to act in a corrupt manner when prompted by EH 4. Superintended P to resign from his position due to rejecting to deal with corruption under his Command in Mount Druitt police station when I brought the matter to his attention on 10 July 2015 5. Mr YZ to return his awarded medal of the order of Australia due to his consent to be involved in this scandalous situation 6. HS and RB to also resign from their positions with the NSW Bar Association due to their consent to be involved in this scandalous situation 7. AAA and XXX to leave the legal profession due to their corruption 8. NC, JB, AM and TM to leave the legal profession due to their corruption in coercing the judiciary to be involved in 21 Century 'witch-hunt' in Sydney Australia, and harassing, embarrassing and unethical conduct during the above mentioned proceedings” Again on 26 November 2016, the plaintiff wrote: “Further to the below, I have one word that describes many of you … hypocrites. You have beautifully shiny, glowing and impressive profiles that only mask dark, thorny and corrupt interiors. You do not practice what you preach. I have emails from AM, JB and Mr XXX actually preaching ethics to me when in their core they are corrupt. And what could I say regarding Mr YZ (friends with Chief Justice of NSW) who is writing about murders that were championed by ZZ QC while he willingly participated (and possibly always had but was never caught before) in the murder of someone's mental and emotional wellbeing. You come across as persons with compassion and as if compassion left the rest of the human-race and possessed only you, but the reality is none of you would know what true compassion is even if it stared you right in the face (link shared in my email of today at 6:09 AM).” In another email dated 27 November 2016 , the plaintiff wrote: “Further, since I do not wish to loose [sic] any further family members due to this underhanded, sly and unexpected political war, time is absolutely of the essence -- in fact, time is everything. Since I will hear of Mr H's and Ms G's resignations through the media, I do not require evidence that this took place. I do however require evidence of the others resignations and acceptances of these resignations. I require evidence of Mr YZ returning his medal and that his return of the medal was accepted. I require evidence of all the other requests. It goes without saying that those who are asked to leave do not have any option of returning at any point to their jobs and/or similar jobs elsewhere. In other words, may be it is time for you to look into change of careers or retirement -- up to you.”
151	2 February 2017	2:45am	The plaintiff wrote saying due to the Christmas and New Year period she was unable to escalate the matter to ICAC. She wanted the Court to deal with the “prominent unresolved issues” on 9 February 2017 and wished to appear by telephone.
152	4 February 2017	5:55pm	The plaintiff wrote including evidence she intends to rely upon on 9 February 2017. These include various Twitter account pages of NC, Ms AAA, EH and JG showing they are connected on their twitter accounts.
153	4 February 2017	7:06pm	The plaintiff wrote to the Chief Justice, Chief Judge, Judicial Registrar Howard and my associate saying she was unable to take the matter “elsewhere”. She attaches her 2 and 4 February 2017 emails and want the court to respond, saying “Please also consider that in addition to the injustices I suffered, defamation of my reputation is not limited, as alleged in Judge Gibson's judgement [sic] handed down on 1 June 2016. To the contrary, my reputation is damaged amongst the Courts, NSW Bar Association, Police, Politicians, etc.”
154	7 February 2017	4:55pm	The Chief Justice’s Associate replied to the plaintiff’s 4 February 2017 email, saying “the Chief Justice does not have the power to intervene as requested”, stating that if she is unhappy with Judge Gibson’s decision she can appeal and suggests she seek legal advice in this regard.
155	7 February 2017	6:39pm	Judicial Registrar Howard responded to the plaintiff’s 4 February 2017 email, in similar terms as the Chief Justice’s Associate’s reply.
156	7 February 2017	6:52pm	My associate wrote to the plaintiff saying she may appear by telephone on 9 February 2017.
9 February 2017	9:00am	Matter listed in the Defamation List

**********

Decision last updated: 09 February 2017