Peter Shumack v Australian Federal Police Commissioner and Australian Federal Police Deputy Firearms Registrar
[2005] ACTCA 45
PETER SHUMACK v AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER and AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE DEPUTY FIREARMS REGISTRAR
[2005] ACTCA 45 (16 November 2005)
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
CIVIL PROCEDURE – appeal – appeal from interlocutory decision of the Master – whether an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Master of the Supreme Court is a matter for the Court of Appeal.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – appeal – pleadings - notice of appeal must disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
Marketing Advisory Services v Football Tasmania Ltd [2002] FCAFC 165
Weatherall v Satellite Receiving Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd (1999) 92 FCR 101
Dai v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2000) 171 ALR 348
ON APPEAL FROM THE MASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
SC 148 of 2005
ACTCA 36-2005
Judge: Connolly J
Supreme Court of the ACT Court of Appeal
Date: 16 November 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) No SC 148 of 2005
COURT OF APPEAL ) No ACTCA 36 - 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE MASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:PETER SHUMACK
Appellant
AND:AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER
First Respondent
AND:AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE DEPUTY FIREARMS REGISTRAR
Second Respondent
ORDER
Judge: Connolly J
Date: 16 November 2005
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
the notice of appeal be struck out as incompetent;
the appellant pay the respondents’ costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) No SC 148 of 2005
COURT OF APPEAL ) No ACTCA 36 - 2005
ON APPEAL FROM THE MASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:PETER SHUMACK
Appellant
AND:AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER
First Respondent
AND:AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE DEPUTY FIREARMS REGISTRAR
Second Respondent
Judge: Connolly J
Date: 16 November 2005
Place: Canberra
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CONNOLLY J:
This is an application by way of notice of motion in the Court of Appeal properly heard before a single judge to strike out the appeal lodged on 16 August 2005 by Mr Shumack as incompetent.
The appeal relates to a decision of Master Harper on 5 August of this year to strike out an amended statement of claim. It is necessary to understand the nature of these proceedings to go back to the originating application lodged by Mr Shumack on 29 March 2005 with the annexed statement of claims. Mr Shumack has been representing himself throughout these proceedings.
The particulars of the originating application are numbered paragraphs 1 through 8 and they set out a range of grievances against officers in the ACT Emergency Services and officers in the Australian Federal Police.
In earlier proceedings before the Master the adequacy of those pleadings was challenged, and there was a strike out application brought on and heard before the Master on 17 June 2005. On 17 June the Master struck out the statement of claim as originally pleaded but granted leave to the plaintiff within 14 days to file and serve an amended statement of claim.
An amended statement of claim was filed and served and became document 11 on the court file SC 148 of 2005. That amended statement of claim sets out again a range of grievances which go back to an employment dispute in 1997, and then makes allegations of conspiracy and victimisation, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit unlawful communications, conspiracy to commit breaches of police law. There are a series of other alleged conspiracies. An application was again brought before the Master to strike that out as disposing no proper cause of action. That was the matter that was successful before him on 5 August 2005.
It is appropriate for me to say to Mr Shumack, because he does represent himself, that courts of law must operate under fairly precise rules of pleading, where a proper legal point is raised and particularised in a proper manner. A court case is not a Royal Commission. That is why we have Royal Commissions. It is when executive government wants to have a broad ranging inquiry into a range of grievances it may or may not choose to set up a Royal Commission, which can range broadly. The courts of law are not designed to deal with broad ranging disparate claims. And that does seem to be the nature of the claim that was before the Master. And the Master, in the exercise of his discretion, struck it out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and made an adverse order for costs.
Mr Shumack lodged a notice of appeal in the Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal, which I referred to previously. The application today is to strike that out as incompetent and Mr Purnell SC, for the applicants/respondents, makes two points. On his first point it seems to me he must necessarily be successful. Mr Purnell points out that there is high authority and one such is the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Marketing Advisory Services v Football Tasmania Ltd [2002] FCAFC 165, the decision of Sackville, Kenny and Allsop JJ, which itself refers to Weatherall v Satellite Receiving Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd (1999) 92 FCR 101 and a series of cases cited there, and Dai v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2000) 171 ALR 348) to the effect that an order summarily dismissing proceedings on the grounds that they disclose no reasonable cause of action is, and always has been, regarded as an interlocutory decision.
The rules of this Court, indeed the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) makes it clear that an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Master lies to a single judge of the ACT Supreme Court and not to the Court of Appeal. And therefore it seems to me that in a matter of law I must grant the relief sought by Mr Purnell. Because his second point, that this notice of appeal has been brought in the wrong court, is clearly as a matter of law, correct.
It is appropriate, however, that I also address the other point raised by Mr Purnell. The point first raised in his argument, that is that the grounds of appeal, in effect, suffer from similar flaws to the original pleadings. That is to say they do not go to disclosing an error of law. What would be necessary to be shown, in order to overturn the decision of the Master, is that the original proceedings were properly pleaded and disclose a reasonable cause of action. Allegations in relation to the conduct of the legal profession, legal professionals or demands that the federal police and the firearm registrar need to come clean, simply do not go to that point.
And so even if this was brought to the right court it would seem to me that the applicants would be entitled to succeed on the strike out application on the basis that the grounds of appeal do not go to demonstrating an error of law by the Master but raise a series of subsequent grievances in relation to the conduct of the police and the conduct it seems of the law firm representing the respondents to these proceedings.
I therefore make order 1 of the notice of motion brought.
It seems to me that the application for costs has been made and it is appropriate that that be made. I will not be delivering written reasons for judgment, but what I have said today is my ex tempore reasons and a transcript of that will be obtained and placed on this file. I also place on the file the additional material that was handed to me by Mr Shumack this morning.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Connolly.
Associate:
Date: 16 November 2005
Counsel for the Appellant: Appellant in person
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr FJ Purnell SC
Solicitor for the Respondents: Minter Ellison
Date of hearing: 16 November 2005
Date of judgment: 16 November 2005
0
1
0