Render v Chief Justice Gleeson

[1999] NSWSC 437

CITATION:	Render v Chief Justice Gleeson [1999] NSWSC 437
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Common Law
FILE NUMBER(S):	10500/99
HEARING DATE(S):	19 April 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	19 April 1999
PARTIES :	Karin S. Render Chief Justice A.M. Gleeson
JUDGMENT OF:	Wood CJatCL

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:

COUNSEL :	Plaintiff in person Ms K Skinner
SOLICITORS:	n/a Australian Government Solicitor
CATCHWORDS:
DECISION:	Proceedings dismissed generally; Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of motion

-

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 1500/99

WOOD CJ at CL

MONDAY 19 APRIL 1999

KARIN S RENDER v CHIEF JUSTICE A M GLEESON

JUDGMENT

1 WOOD CJ at CL: The plaintiff has filed a summons in this Court seeking an order that Chief Justice Gleeson “hand over the judgment of a court hearing in which he was the presiding Judge in 1970 or 1971”. She also seeks orders that his Honour hand over her guardianship papers, her personal medical file and hospital reports, as well as the file containing the names of the persons who have committed criminal offences against her. The defendant seeks an order dismissing the proceedings. 2 In her summons, the plaintiff asserts that at the “hearing” his Honour awarded her compensation from the Australian Government, unconditional permanent residency, as well as certain property. 3 The plaintiff has alleged, in various other documents placed into evidence, that this “hearing” was conducted at a time when his Honour was a barrister but claimed to be a Judge. Although the documents are somewhat unclear, it appears that it is alleged that there were a number of other persons present and that the proceedings followed an event when the former Queensland Police Commissioner, Mr Whitrod, had sexually assaulted the plaintiff and that various felonies were committed by him and by his staff. 4 The documents allege that in 1970, the plaintiff received a letter requiring her to attend as a witness in a Sydney court hearing and that during that “hearing”, presided over by his Honour, he was informed that she received $22.5 million and other property by way of compensation which was to be received by her at the latest in 1979. The documents also suggest she had received permanent residency and that the Consul for Germany had been made her guardian. 5 Various other allegations are made in the documents, of course, of which it is asserted that from time to time the plaintiff received psychiatric assistance and was placed under hypnosis and has suffered a suppressed memory. She also says that, during the course of the proceedings, a psychologist who was present was sentenced to gaol for three months. I do not think it necessary to refer in any greater detail to the material as it is in similar vein. 6 The evidence does, however, establish that the Chief Justice was not appointed a Judge of any court until November 1988. He was, in 1970 and 1971, a junior counsel. 7 A short reading of the material discloses to my satisfaction that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed and that the proceedings are both frivolous and vexatious. 8 I direct in accordance with SCR Part 13 R 5, that the proceedings be dismissed generally. 9 An order has been sought for costs. I order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the motion.

**********

Last Modified: