Rose v Premier of Queensland Department, (Hon. Campbell Newman, Premier) (No 2)

[2013] NSWSC 1421

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Rose v Premier of Queensland Department, (Hon. Campbell Newman, Premier) (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1421

Hearing dates:

23 September 2013

Decision date:

23 September 2013

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

R A Hulme J

Decision:

1. The proceedings in respect of each defendant are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of those defendants who have filed an appearance.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE - unrepresented plaintiffs - notice of motion to strike out statement of claim - incomprehensible pleadings do not disclose cause of action - no issue of principle

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Rose v Premier of Queensland Department, (Hon. Campbell Newman, Premier) and ors [2013] NSWSC 1363

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Janice Rose (First Plaintiff)
Kathleen Guthrie (Second Plaintiff)
Premier of Queensland Department, (Hon. Campbell Newman, Premier (First Defendant) and 39 others

Representation:

Counsel:
In person (Plaintiffs)
N Gouliaditis (2nd & 36th Defendants)
R Iaconis (19th Defendant)
R Pillay (20th Defendant)
E Gair (30th Defendant)
E Austin-Woods (32nd Defendant)
A Langshaw (33rd Defendant)
I Bennett (24th & 34th Defendants)
Solicitors:
Australian Government Solicitor (2nd & 36th Defendants)
Dibbs Barker (19th & 30th Defendants)
Australian Business Lawyers (32nd Defendant)
Maddocks (33rd Defendant)
Sparke Helmore (24th & 34th Defendants)

File Number(s):

2013/231445

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: This matter was initiated by the filing of a statement of claim either on 30 July or 20 August this year (it bears two date stamps). It was prepared by the two plaintiffs here, who are litigants in person.

1. The statement of claim annexed a number of documents purporting to set out the relief claimed, and the pleadings and particulars in respect of the claim.

1. The matter came before Davies J in the duty judge list on 18 September 2013: Rose v Premier of Queensland Department, (Hon. Campbell Newman, Premier) and ors [2013] NSWSC 1363. His Honour gave a judgment in which, amongst other things, he expressed some concern about understanding the nature of the claim and made various orders including that the plaintiffs be referred to the Registrar pursuant to r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro bono panel for legal assistance.

1. I understand that the plaintiffs have had some discussion with the Registrar about that but, as Davies J foreshadowed in paragraph 15 of his judgment, no lawyer has yet been identified who would be prepared to assist the plaintiffs.

1. Davies J also granted leave to a number of defendants to file and serve a notice of motion to strike out the statement of claim, or dismiss the proceedings, and included in his orders that such notices of motion could be returnable today.

1. The difficulty in the matter is the incomprehensibility of the pleadings. It was suggested by Davies J that the plaintiffs ought to read a certain part of the rules with a view to preparing an amended statement of claim which complies. His Honour suggested that it might assist the plaintiffs if they would do so and provide same to the defendants prior to today. The plaintiffs indicated that they would endeavour to do that.

1. Handed up in court today was a purported attempt to comply. I regret to say that the proposed amended statement of claim suffers from the same defects as the original.

1. So as to illustrate the difficulty with the statement of claim, I will quote what is said in relation to two of the defendants. I should add there are in fact 40 defendants, and the claims relating to each are quite disparate.

1. The 25th defendant is the New South Wales Police Force. The entirety of the pleadings in the proposed amended statement of claim says this:

In April 2011 I left NSW after in action from Police at Gosford when I reported criminal behaviour the month prior. I was laughed at and fobbed off and told to go to the hospital.

The Stat Dec that was faxed from Gosford Court House was not included in my records. The reports were written in a false and misleading way and Criminal activities continued to occur. I was concerned for the safety of myself and my daughters as I believed the criminal behaviours were targeted at myself and were connected with my sister Janice.

I left NSW to visit Janice on the farm and to clear up the criminal behaviours in NSW which I believed were generated in Qld after my visit to Qld in October 2010 to attend a Q Comp right of review for my sisters right hip. My daughters were 20 yrs old and 22 yrs old so old enough to look after themselves, both had full time jobs and I paid the rent.

1. In relation to the 26th defendant, a Mr Grant Sullivan, what is proposed in the amended summons are pleadings in this fashion:

In July 2012 I rented a studio apartment from Grant Sullivan for $250 per week. The first inspection revealed a clean looking and smelling rental property. There was no mention of broken front door lock.

Once moved in Grant told me he was fixing the entry door lock which was needing fixing for some weeks. The carpet was staind [sic] in the lounge room. Janice offered to have it cleaned.

The carpet cleaner stated it was dirty Grant told me the previous tenants had spilt drugs on the carpet.

Remedy sought compensation for rental of unclean premises which was not secure and compensation for Grant being involved in shared information relating to Janice Rose.

1. Now, those defendants have not appeared today, but I have quoted what is said in respect of them because they are some of the more succinct pleadings and they give the flavour of the entirety of the pleadings. And this is in the proposed amended statement of claim. The original is worse. In their entirety, the pleadings are utterly incomprehensible.

1. The applications before me today by some of the defendants are for various orders, but there seems to be consensus that I should consider making an order pursuant to UCPR r 13.4:

13.4 Frivolous and vexatious proceedings

(1) If in any proceedings it appears to the court that in relation to the proceedings generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings:

(a) the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, or

(b) no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, or

(c) the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court,

the court may order that the proceedings be dismissed generally or in relation to that claim.

(2) The court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application for an order under subrule (1).

1. I am satisfied from what I have heard and read today that the pleadings are deficient to the point where no reasonable cause of action can possibly be discerned. The proposed amended pleadings do nothing to rectify the problem.

1. If the problem was confined to the inability of the plaintiffs, who obviously have no legal training, to articulate in a proper fashion what might in truth be causes of action with some merit, then the remedy would be to strike out the pleadings and grant leave to replead. Attention would also have to be given to the question of removing parties, most of whom appear to have been improperly joined in the one proceeding. But the material before me leads me to hold very grave doubt that there is anything of merit underlying the lengthy, discursive and largely unintelligible offering that is before the Court at the moment.

1. It would only be productive of unfairness to those of the 40 defendants who have been served to have them vexed by the continuation of such an ill-founded action.

1. I acknowledge that the power to dismiss proceedings at this stage is exceptional. But it is clear enough now that the proceedings are an abuse of process; there are no discernible prospects of success and continuation would be utterly futile.

ORDERS:

1. The proceedings in respect of each defendant are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of those defendants who have filed an appearance.

**********

Decision last updated: 25 September 2013