Rouvinetis v Department of Housing
[2000] NSWSC 131
•9 March 2000
CITATION: Rouvinetis v Department of Housing [2000] NSWSC 131 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20212/1999 HEARING DATE(S): 29 February 2000 JUDGMENT DATE: 9 March 2000 PARTIES :
Evangelos Rouvinetis (Plaintiff)
v
Department of Housing Commission of NSW (Defendant)
JUDGMENT OF: Master Malpass
COUNSEL : N/A (Plaintiff)
Mr M Fordham (Defendant)SOLICITORS: In Person (Plaintiff)
Chris Valacos, Principal Solicitor, Department of Housing (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS: Summary dismissal abuse of process - no reasonable cause of action - no question of principle. LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 15. CASES CITED: N/A. DECISION: See paragraph 19.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISIONMASTER MALPASS
THURSDAY 9 MARCH 2000
20212/1999 EVANGELOS ROUVINETIS v DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING COMMISSION OF NSW
JUDGMENT
1 These proceedings were commenced by the filing of a document entitled “Statement of Claims”. It was filed on 19 April 1999. The plaintiff was not legally represented.
2 The document comprises a bundle of material. Written on the front page of the document is inter alia the following:-
“FACTS PLEADED:
(i) PART 15 RULE ‘7’ THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT UNJUSTLY HAS BEEN SUBJECTED BY PERSONNELS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING COMMISSION TO MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(ii) INTENT TO INJURY
(iii) CONSPIRACY WITH INTERFERING WITH, SELECTING WITNESSESS AND IGNORING ONES SYPORTING THE PLAINTIFF
(iv) ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF IN BAD MANNER AND FAITH AND IN THE PROCESS IGNORE CROWNS ADVICE, PROFESSIONAL ADVICE, ‘THEIR SOLICITOR’
(v) MALICIOUS SLANDER
PART 16 RULE 6(1) AN EXTENSION WITH PARTICILARS OF THE PLEADING WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMMENTS ATTACHED IS FILED ALONG”.
It makes a claim for compensation of $25,000 and damages.
3 The balance of the material consists of a verifying affidavit, three pages which are headed “EXTENSION OF PLEADING WITH PARTICULARS AND DOCUMMENTS ATTACHED” and the attached documentation.
4 The Supreme Court Rules 1970 stipulate the requirements for inter alia, the form and manner of pleading (Part 15). The plaintiff’s document manifestly does not satisfy those requirements. Indeed, it has enormous deficiencies as a pleading. In its present form, it is liable to be struck out.
5 The proceedings have been the subject of Differential Case Management. The need for amendment has been brought to the attention of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been given leave to amend the process. He has not taken advantage of that opportunity. Indeed, he takes the approach that he does not intend to amend it.
6 These proceedings follow on other proceedings involving the parties. The plaintiff manifests very strong feelings towards the defendant and sees these proceedings as inter alia a vehicle to rectify what he sees as past injustice.
7 The defendant has now moved for summary dismissal of the proceedings. The Notice of Motion was filed on 3 December 1999. It was heard on 29 February 2000.
8 In support of the application, the defendant read an affidavit sworn by Antonio Calcopietro on 11 January 2000. Also it tendered exhibit 1 (a copy Summons issued upon Information laid on 24 June 1999 by the Plaintiff). The plaintiff did not adduce any evidence.
9 In his submissions, the application was vigorously opposed by the plaintiff. His presentation was both volatile and offensive.
10 I carefully listened to those submissions. Perhaps because he may have regarded his task as hopeless, he did not address the real issues thrown up by this application. Rather, he used the occasion as a forum to vent his views of the defendant.
11 Since then, I have carefully read all of the material contained in the bundle which comprises the originating process. It may be observed that the front page of the document appears to be what was intended as the pleading of the plaintiff’s claim. The balance of the material is perhaps more in the nature of particulars and submissions.
12 The court has a discretionary power to grant summary disposition. The power is exercised having regard to the relevant circumstances of the particular case before the court and so that justice is best served between the parties. There is abundant authority for the proposition that the remedy should be granted only in what may be described as clear cases. The onus rests on the applicant.
13 The power is available where no reasonable cause of action is disclosed or the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.
14 I have already drawn attention to the pleading deficiencies of that part of the process which appears to be intended as a pleading (inter alia at best it can be read as identifying alleged causes of action rather than pleading material facts). I should add that a defendant could not be expected to plead to the matter which appears in the “EXTENSION OF PLEADING”. Any attempt at pleading to it, would merely throw up a proliferation of non-material issues. It would defeat the object of the pleading process which is to define and narrow issues.
15 As things presently stand, the plaintiff has brought a clearly defective process which he does not intend to amend. Accordingly, the proceedings are doomed to failure. In my view, there is an abuse of process which would of itself justify a dismissal of the proceedings. Be that as it may, there are even more serious problems.
16 The process fails to disclose any reasonable cause of action. The process identifies five areas as “Facts Pleaded”. These are malicious prosecution, intent to injury, conspiracy with and ignoring witnesses, actions taken in bad manner and faith and malicious slander. At best this material can be regarded as no more than either allegations pertaining to causes of action not known to law or allegations pertaining to causes of action which have no relevance in the circumstances of this case.
17 For completeness, I should mention that prior to the hearing the plaintiff had signed a Notice of Discontinuance. This could be taken as an indication that, at some stage in these proceedings, he had come to the view that they had no prospects of success. There seems to have been a subsequent change of heart and the plaintiff did not proceed with this means of their disposition.
18 In my view, the defendant has discharged the onus of satisfying the court of its entitlement to summary relief in this case. It is one of those clear cases. It seems to me that justice is best served by the dismissal of the proceedings.
19 The proceedings are dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings (including the costs of the Notice of Motion). The exhibit may be returned.
**********
0
1