Saroa v Reckon Australia Pty Ltd

[2000] HCATrans 339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S2 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

MATAIO SAROA

Applicant

and

RECKON AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 4 AUGUST 2000, AT 4.11 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR M. SAROA appeared in person.

MR C.P. HOY:   If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR N.J. BEAUMONT, for the respondent. (instructed by Musgrave Peach)

GLEESON CJ:   Are you Mr Saroa?

MR SAROA:   Yes.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, come to the lectern and go ahead please.

MR SAROA:   Your Honour, may I ask for permission to – I have a weak knee.

GLEESON CJ:   You want to sit down?

MR SAROA:   Yes.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, by all means.

MR SAROA:   Thank you very much.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, you can address us sitting down, but put yourself somewhere near a microphone, if you do not mind.

MR SAROA:   Thank you.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, Mr Saroa.

MR SAROA:   I just want to add a few points in support of my application for S2 of 2000, in order to have the orders by Justice Hely and Justice Whitlam cancelled.

First of all I would like to – the points are number one, I would like to say that I am applying for special leave to appeal Justice Whitlam’s order against my application, N1272 of 1999.  My application was for the extension of time to serve my notice of appeal against Justice Hely’s order to my application N666 of 1999.  The application 1272 is at page 15 of the application book.  My application now being considered is S2 of 2000 and it refers directly to the cancellation of all these orders by Justice Hely.

Number two, at the advice of Justice Hely, I used the services of Ms Sally Dowling as my lawyer.  Page 18 of the application book is a letter addressed to me from my lawyer, Ms Dowling, dated 14 September 1999.  I knew my lawyer, I liked my lawyer, I knew like my lawyer, that I could withdraw my application of copyright infringement with each party to bear its own legal costs.  Justice Hely knew the same, but he did not order it.  After refusing my house money, savings account and cheque account, as everything, Justice Hely is Anglo-Saxon and he wanted the Anglo-Saxon respondent to own the system of accounting I created while I remain on welfare.  That means I remain on welfare.  So Justice Hely’s order was wrong because he knew that Sally Dowling is another Anglo-Saxon and she has sided with the respondent by consenting to the dismissal of my application N666 of 1999. 

Number three, I was late in filing my notice of appeal against Justice Hely’s order, N666 of 1999, and Justice Whitlam, another Anglo‑Saxon, rejected my application for the extension of time.  He had my letter of 22/9/99 to Sally Dowling and it was headed “Discontinuing Court Proceedings”.  He should know then that Sally Dowling was taking sides with the respondent and Justice Hely’s order was therefore wrong.

But Justice Whitlam supported the wrong order for N666 by Justice Hely.  He claimed that Ms Dowling warned me in a letter dated 20 September 1999, a letter proving Sally Dowling was taking sides with the respondent.  Justice Whitlam knew then that Justice Hely’s order was wrong, but he still supported the same by giving the wrong order to 1272/1999.

Number four, Justice Hely knew that Mr Condon, the lawyer for the respondent, in page 7 of the application book, paragraphs 5 and 15, spoke evasively that his client was guilty of copyright infringement.  I did not understand Mr Condon’s replies, but I knew that in everything we create there is a starting point.  Strangely enough, the starting point in my book, which comprises of the house money, savings account and cheque account, is the same as the starting point in Intuit Australia, “Quicken No. 1 CD‑Rom for Household Transactions”.  That is why Mr Condon replied evasively to make it hard for me to know that his client is guilty of copyright infringement.  Mr Condon did not want to be charged with deception and…..as I warned him earlier in writing.  I must add here that I gave a copy of my book to the respondent in 1995 or 1996 while the latter was selling bananas at Flemington Markets, and there was no Intuit Australia Pty Limited in existence at the time.  Refer page 24 of the application book for the first and second pages of Chapter 9 of my book, “Household Management”.

Your Honour I spoke of prejudice and racism in Part 1 of my summary of arguments.  I have known from experience that the Federal Government of 1982 ordered that apart from having me killed, I must be refused justice wherever in Australia.  The Queensland Parliament tried to kill me in 1984, according to court proceedings.  Apart from many others, Justices Hely and Whitlam refused me justice, as well as the umpire, Mr Moon of the New South Wales Fair Trading Tribunal a few weeks ago.  These injustices endangered my life, but the same has made the respondent, namely Reckon Australia Limited, known as Intuit Australia, become very rich illegally.  The Federal Court of Australia allowed this illegal use of my accounting system to continue.  As I explained, the two judges, Hely and Whitlam, wanted the Anglo-Saxon respondent to own the accounting system for household transactions, which I, the applicant in these hearings, created from 1986 and copyrighted in 1992.

Your Honour and honourable members of this Court, I suffer also because I am not of Anglo-Saxon origin.  Racism, therefore, is the only reason why Justice Hely wanted the respondent to own the Household Accounting system that I created.  It was his reason and it became Justice Whitlam’s reason also.  For two Anglo-Saxon judges of the Australian Federal Court to believe that racism is justice in my case, then, as I recommended, the rule of one race must be replaced by the rule of many races now occupying Australia. 

This is very important for the welfare of all Australians in order to rid Australia from racist judges like Mr Hely and Mr Whitlam and, as we all know, there is no racism in democratic nation like Australia.  With all due respect to the honourable members of this Court, I ask that because of all the points I have raised in my application book, including the sixth one, my application for the extension of time to file and serve my notice of appeal to the respondent should be granted so that justice will be done to this matter, according to the provisions of the 1960 Copyright Act of Australia.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, thank you.  Yes, that concluded what you wanted to say to us?

MR SAROA:   Yes.

GLEESON CJ:    Mr Hoy, you have made an application for costs on an indemnity basis.  Why should you have that?

MR HOY:   Your Honour, I withdraw that application.

GLEESON CJ:   You simply seek costs on an ordinary basis?

MR HOY:   I do, your Honour, thank you.

GLEESON CJ:   In this matter, the Court is of the view that there are not sufficient prospects of success of an appeal to warrant a grant of special leave.  The application is refused with costs.

Call the matter of Velevski.

MR SAROA:   Can I ask just one question?

GLEESON CJ:   No, we are dealing with the next matter now, Mr Saroa.

AT 4.23 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED