Re Ross-James

[2017] QCA 66

[2017] QCA 66

COURT OF APPEAL

FRASER JA

Appeal No 2015 of 2017
Appeal No 12753 of 2016

RE: ROSS JAMES BRADLEY  Appellant

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 18 APRIL 2017

JUDGMENT

FRASER JA:  The appellant sued one Matthew James McDermott in the trial division.  A Judge of the trial division struck out that proceeding as revealing no cause of action.  On the 27th of February 2017, Justice McMurdo struck out the appellant’s notice of appeal in CA12753 of 2016 and dismissed the appeal against the order striking out the appellant’s proceedings in the trial division.  Justice McMurdo found that the appeal had no prospects of success because neither the notice of appeal nor what was said by the appellant identified any basis upon which the order could be set aside.

On the 28th of February 2017, the appellant filed a document in the Court of Appeal registry.  The document was given a new file number, but it is described as “Re; CA#12753/16”.  The document asserts an error was made by Justice McMurdo.  It is for that reason and that reason only that I have referred to the current litigant as the appellant.  In fact, perhaps more accurately, it is to be described as an application seeking review of Justice McMurdo’s decision.  The suggested error is that Justice McMurdo referred to the appeal as being between Ross Bradley James as the appellant and Matthew James McDermott as the respondent.  The document asserts that the matter originally filed was, in fact, between the appellant as, I quote “ross-james –V- matthew-james, both legal persons created, at law.”

The appellant also argues that errors were made by Justice McMurdo in failing to make the distinction between those differently expressed names and in failing to comply with canonical law or the law of the Roman Curia.  But at no point in the appellant’s submissions, that is to say, in his oral submissions or in the lengthy notes he handed up which I have read, did he identify any arguable error made by Justice McMurdo.

The appellant’s submissions make no legal sense at all.  They could not possibly justify review of the decision made by Justice McMurdo.  The proposed review or appeal, if that is what it is, has no prospects of success.

It is apparent, however, that the appellant strongly believes in the truth of his submissions and that they do have legal merit.  He is very likely, it seems to me, to continue filing documents upon the same fundamentally mistaken view that he has identified some fundamental legal error which, before now, has never been identified.  In the circumstances, I make the following orders.

Strike out the notice of appeal filed on the 28th of February 2017;  order that the appellant not be permitted to file any document at the Court of Appeal registry relating to CA12753 of 2016 without the leave of the Court or a Judge of appeal.  Adjourn the Court.