Pethers v Minister for Agriculture - [2010] NSWSC 805

CITATION: Kenneth A Pethers v Minister for Agriculture [2010] NSWSC 805

HEARING DATE(S): 15 July 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Pembroke J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 15 July 2010

DECISION: See judgment

CATCHWORDS: PLEADING - summary dismissal - no reasonable cause of action - no recognisable orthodox relief sought - PLEADING - oppressive unintelligible, confused and complex

LEGISLATION CITED: Stock Diseases Act 1923
Stock Diseases Regulation 2009

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gunns Limited v Marr [2005] VCS 251
Kirby v Sanderson Motors Pty Limited (2001) 54 NSWLR 135
McGuirk v The University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424
Shelton v National Roads & Motorists Association Limited [2004] FCA 1393

PARTIES: Kenneth A Pethers
Minister for Agriculture

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/278916

COUNSEL: K A Pether - Litigant in person (Plaintiff)
Ms G Mahony - for the Defendant

SOLICITORS: K A Pether - Litigant in person (Plaintiff)
NSW Crown Solicitor - for the Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

PEMBROKE J

THURSDAY 15 JULY 2010

2008/278916 - K A PETHERS v MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff is a grazier who conducts a grazing business in northern New South Wales. By his amended Statement of Claim filed on 11 June 2010 he seeks the following remedy:

PROPOSED REMEDY: I am not indisposed to a reasonable settlement, nor a state contiguity with an identification or tracking operation. However sufficient condition already existed with vendor declarations and the obligatory docketing and notation through sales and registered stock agents. These systems are more accurate in addition to more trustworthy, at hand and detail a descriptive account of age, style and sex of the subjects. Moreover the traditional tailtag, invariably used in sequence (and so numbered), has distinct advantage of indicating vendor and booked in as a superior article (ten weaner steers, two black cows etc) does not inculcate in the minds of handlers, agents, abbittoir workers and the like, a diminution of responsibility, thinking that (even subliminally) a scanner or machine will do that. Only a contemporaneous, passive non invasive scenario of non wireless tailtags. A pathway from breeding onto finishing, then slaughter, without the stress, fresh wound, contusions to head neck and shoulder, agitated handling and passage through the process, will ensure optimal meat quality. Rescue from bankruptcy, and, acceptance of effect that has been an unbearable holocaust for myself and animals. That has been a great personal pain, damage and cost, that must stop, and resolve sought forthwith and duly recorded.

2 It is, I regret to say, transparently obvious from the description of the remedy which the plaintiff seeks that this is not a conventional proceeding based upon an orthodox cause of action seeking orthodox relief.

The Defendants

3 There are three named defendants but in reality there may only be one, namely the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister is the second defendant. He seeks an order, among…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pethers v Minister for Agriculture and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWSC 805
Decision Date: 15 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pethers v Minister for Agriculture involved a plaintiff who sought to challenge certain legislative and administrative decisions made by the Minister for Agriculture. The plaintiff alleged that these decisions were unlawful and oppressive. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's claims had sufficient merit to warrant further proceedings.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the plaintiff's pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the plaintiff was seeking recognisable orthodox relief. Additionally, the court considered whether the pleadings were oppressive, unintelligible, confused, and complex to the extent that they would make it unjust to require the defendant to respond.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not supported by any plausible legal basis, and the pleadings did not seek any recognisable form of relief that could be granted by the court. The pleadings were deemed to be overly complex, confusing, and oppressive, making it difficult to discern any coherent legal argument. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no reasonable cause of action and that the plaintiff had not identified any orthodox relief that could be granted. The court found that the pleadings were so unclear and convoluted that it would be unjust to require the Minister for Agriculture to respond to them.

The Federal Court ordered that the plaintiff's case be summarily dismissed due to the lack of any reasonable cause of action and the oppressive nature of the pleadings. The court further determined that the costs of the proceedings should be awarded to the Minister for Agriculture. This outcome underscored the importance of clarity and coherence in legal pleadings, especially in cases involving complex administrative and legislative decisions.

Orders