Re the Hon Justice Newnes;
[2014] WASC 487
•17 DECEMBER 2014
RE THE HON JUSTICE NEWNES; EX PARTE BARKLA [2014] WASC 487
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 487 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2666/2014 | 15 DECEMBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | McKECHNIE J | 17/12/14 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to file the application refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GEOFF BARKLA |
Catchwords: | Proposed action against two appellate judges Judicial immunity from suit Application dismissed |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services [2014] WASCA 192 Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WASCA 240 Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222 Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21 Barkla v Workcover Western Australia [2014] WASCA 40 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
GEOFF BARKLA
Applicant
Catchwords:
Proposed action against two appellate judges - Judicial immunity from suit - Application dismissed
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to file the application refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Solicitors:
Applicant : In person
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services [2014] WASCA 192
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WASCA 240
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222
Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21
Barkla v Workcover Western Australia [2014] WASCA 40
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1
Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34; (2005) 227 CLR 166
1 McKECHNIE J: Mr Barkla was once employed as a custodial services officer at the Geraldton court. He was injured in the course of his employment. In due course the insurance company for his employer accepted liability and he has been paid the full prescribed amount of weekly compensation payments. Being generally dissatisfied with that outcome the applicant has launched a number of proceedings which have resulted in a number of appeals: Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21; Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WASCA 240; Barkla v Workcover Western Australia [2014] WASCA 40; Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services [2014] WASCA 192; Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222.
2 He has been singularly unsuccessful.
3 In a judgment published on 8 October 2014: Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services the Court of Appeal dealt with an application for interrogatories. The court was constituted by Newnes and Murphy JJA:
The appellant has appealed against an order of Staude J in the District Court, dismissing the appellant's application for leave to appeal from a decision of an arbitrator under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA).
The appellant has filed an interim application in the appeal seeking orders that three named persons each answer four interrogatories. Two of those to whom the interrogatories are sought to be directed appear to be employees of the first respondent and the other appears to be a solicitor.
The application to administer interrogatories is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the appellate process and the function of this court. It proceeds on the false premise that the function of this court is to conduct a fresh factual enquiry into matters said to be relevant to the decision below. That is not the function of this court. The application is entirely misconceived and is dismissed [1] - [3].
4 On 20 October 2014 Mr Barkla attempted to file a writ of summons in the Central Office naming both judges as proposed defendants.
5 A registrar ordered that the documents were not to be accepted for filing without leave of a judge having first been obtained: Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 67 r 5.
6 The applicant then filed a notice of originating motion on 25 November 2014 which was accepted for filing. The notice however did not seek leave to file the writ, but instead sought orders that:
Judge Newnes and Judge Murphy provide Statute/s of Law as to why the Plaintiff is NOT permitted to ask Alliance 4 Questions, pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 Order 27 - Interrogatories.
7 On 5 December 2014 the court wrote to the applicant at his address in South Australia advising that the this and another matter was listed for hearing at 9.30 am on 15 December 2014.
8 The letter continued:
The purpose of the hearing is for you to show cause why your application should not be dismissed as an abuse of process. Please note that the hearing will be conducted by telephone. To that end please provide a telephone number the court can contact you on.
9 At the time listed for the hearing, the applicant was contacted by telephone and professed ignorance at the hearing. However, he responded and made submissions. These quickly descended into argumentative demands for questions to be answered. The applicant was advised that his application would be dismissed and shortly afterwards, the hearing becoming unproductive, telephone contact was terminated.
10 There are a number of reasons why the application should be dismissed but it is necessary to refer to only one which is decisive. The doctrine of judicial immunity prevents personal actions against judges in these circumstances: Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34; (2005) 227 CLR 166; D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1.
11 The proposed writ of summons and the notice of originating motion are each vexatious and an abuse of the processes of the court.
4
8
1