Seymour v Lowy

[2003] NSWSC 793

CITATION:	Seymour v Lowy [2003] NSWSC 793
HEARING DATE(S):	18 August 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:	18 August 2003
JURISDICTION:	Common Law Division
JUDGMENT OF:	Master Malpass
DECISION:	The documents filed on 3 June 2003 and 10 June 2003 (each being entitled as a Statement of Claim) are struck out. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs.
CATCHWORDS:	Striking out of Statements of Claim - no reasonable cause of action - futile exercise - abuse of process.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 15, r 7, r 26.
CASES CITED:	N/A
PARTIES :	Dean Allan Seymour (Plaintiff) v Frank Lowy (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 20140 of 2003
COUNSEL:	N/A (Plaintiff) Mr C Birch SC/N Obrart (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	In Person (Plaintiff) Speed and Stracey Pty Limited (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Master Malpass

18 August 2003

20140 of 2003 Dean Allan Seymour v Frank Lowy

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: The plaintiff has filed various documents in these proceedings. One is a Statement of Claim filed on 3 June 2003. Another is a Statement of Claim filed on 10 June 2003. The content of each is similar. Each comprises ten paragraphs and brings a claim for damages and costs.

2 The body of the document filed on 10 June 2003 takes the following form.

“1/ That whilst Dean Seymour & family was residing at Gretle Ave Tuggerah NSW the defendant had Knowledge and was possibly the major conspirator in the illegal bugging of premises.
2/ That in regards to the Seymour family, the defendant was responsible or had a hand in manipulating ,interference.. of what property became available for them to rent…
3/That the defendant was responsible for where the Seymour family ended up.. ie there new premises, this being 33 Whiteswan drv Bluehaven..This move was negotiated due to that area being run over bye people Of a different culture.And the defendant was Responsible for where there next location was going To be .
4/ That the defendant knew or was in contact with the new Neibours at 33 White Swan dv Bluehaven.
5/ And most of all IMPORTANT , that the defendant <Frank Lowery> dressed himself in a CHUBB Security Uniform,on a day not listed at the moment for Security Reasons,Approached the plaintiff at his site of work On this day,and made out to be his working partner on This day,This was witnessed bye many witnesses and Also two politicians I can name that were there on this Day.One of which was TONY ABBOT.
6/That the defendant has used his powers and pull within the police force of NSW to try & intimidate the plaintiff even as far as going to false arrest,and constant surveillance from same.Tracking my every step,and kilometre,and false breath...also incidence involving police at 33 White Swan drive blue haven…..
7/The defendants actions have caused a family break up also great discomfort,misfortune, cost of plaintiffs job with no real chance of working within the security industry in Australia again..Loss of assets,emotional stress, loss of income to date ,total inilation of the plaintiffs life.
8/The plaintiff claims the defendant talked about a lot of issues on this day, 1 of which was showing this building from the place of employment ,which was the one tell building and making ststements about the likes of Packer and Merdoch ..ie.. One Tell building ..Ever since this day the defendant never gave up persuing me even when I told him to stick his car up his ass.
9/I do believe the plaintiff still has a major roll in manipulating the ware-abouts and lifestyle of my children as now a divorce has been finalised.
10/The plaintiff Strongly urges this court to submit both the plaintiff and defendant to a lengthy polygraph to have a speedy outcome to this matter,not that the plaintiff has enough through witnesses ,this would no doubt speed things up if cvhallenged and put a close to this long running saga.
THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS
Damages…To the Value off$55 000000 no interest sort defendant to pay costs…
For ----Harassment, illegal bugging , Breakdown of marriage , Interference from the defendant in the plaintiffs household and external interference ,loss of income ,Furniture , Huge amount of stress, loss of family law proceedings <ie> costs involved , inhumane treatment..Psychological discomfort, Least but not last Loss of position as Security officer and Long term goal,as I was well and truly on track…”

3 The defendant now moves to have the process dismissed or struck out. The plaintiff is a litigant in person. He has unwisely undertaken the difficult task of seeking to draft his own process.

4 All litigants in this Court must comply with its rules. The pleading provisions are to be found in Pt 15 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970. Rule 7 of Pt 15 requires that a pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in summary form of the material facts, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved. The plaintiff's documents do not comply inter alia with those provisions.

5 Part 15 r 26 enables the court to strike out process. This may be done where inter alia the process fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or is otherwise an abuse of process of the court.

6 The plaintiff's documents do not disclose a reasonable cause of action. To leave them on foot would be an exercise in futility and bring about an abuse of process of the court.

7 In the circumstances the defendant is entitled to have the documents struck out. The documents filed on 3 June 2003 and 10 June 2003 (each being entitled as a Statement of Claim) are struck out. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.

**********

Last Modified: 09/05/2003