| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
S CI 2013 4912
| ANTHONY SULLIVAN | Appellant |
| - and - | |
| GREYFRIARS PTY LTD (ACN 004 272 931) | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Lansdowne AsJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 January 2014; further affidavits filed till 10 February 2014 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 8 September 2014 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Sullivan v Greyfriars Pty Ltd |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2014] VSC 422 | Revision No. 1, 16 September 2014 |
---
APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT – summary dismissal of counterclaim– counterclaim sought damages, and to invoke aspects of the criminal law, corporations law and the Charter – no cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court shown in the counterclaim – no error of law shown in summary dismissal of it – appeal dismissed -
Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 s109.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Appellant | In person | |
| For the Respondent | Mr T. Sowden | Nicholas O’Donohue & Co Lawyers |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1
Facts and history of proceedings between the parties................................................................ 2
The appellant’s counterclaim........................................................................................................... 6
Hearing and determination by the Magistrates’ Court............................................................... 7
Issues on appeal to this Court........................................................................................................ 13
Discussion.......................................................................................................................................... 16
Claim for damages...................................................................................................................... 16
Charter.......................................................................................................................................... 19
Structured oppression................................................................................................................ 20
Various prohibitions under the ASIC Act and Corporations Act........................................ 22
Various alleged criminal offences............................................................................................ 23
Land not shares........................................................................................................................... 24
Restriction to the counterclaim amount and denial of a right to a jury.............................. 25
Culpable management............................................................................................................... 25
Forced signing............................................................................................................................. 26
Inconsistent rules/non-disclosure of the requirement for approval of a sale................... 29
False accounting.......................................................................................................................... 29
Constitution................................................................................................................................. 30
Harassment/invasion of privacy/stalking/victimisation................................................... 30
Forced eviction/servitude/blackmail/harassment and coercion...................................... 31
Invalid claim for legal fees........................................................................................................ 31
Lack of notice of the meeting at which special levies were imposed................................. 31
Interest.......................................................................................................................................... 32
Defamation................................................................................................................................... 33
Claims made in written reply................................................................................................... 33
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 35
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
This proceeding is an appeal from an order of the Magistrates’ Court constituted by Judicial Registrar J. Maclean on 23 August 2013[1]. The Registrar found that the appellant is the owner of shares in a company title block of units owned by the respondent. The shares entitle him to occupation of Flat 36, which is located within a block of 43 units at 53 Balaclava Road, East St Kilda. The respondent’s claim in the Magistrates Court by the time of hearing concerned only outstanding maintenance and special levies. By her order, Judicial Registrar Maclean ordered the appellant to pay the respondent the sum of $9,712.30 for those levies together with interest in the sum of $3,955.48 and dismissed the appellant’s counterclaim. She dismissed the counterclaim summarily, giving short reasons for doing so.
[1]Her Honour is referred to as “Registrar” in the transcript below and for that reason that is how I refer to her in these reasons. Counsel for the respondent informed this Court after delivery of this judgment that she is in fact a Magistrate.
The appellant conceded before the Magistrates’ Court that he had not paid the levies, but contended he should not…
Continue reading Sullivan v Greyfriars Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sullivan v Greyfriars Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 422
- Case
- [2014] VSC 422
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrates' Court had jurisdiction to hear Sullivan's counterclaim, which sought both civil and quasi-criminal remedies. The court had to consider the scope of its jurisdiction under the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 and whether the counterclaim fell within that jurisdiction. The court also had to determine whether the Magistrates' Court erred in law by dismissing the counterclaim summarily without giving Sullivan an opportunity to amend it.
The court found that the Magistrates' Court did not err in law by dismissing Sullivan's counterclaim. The court held that the counterclaim did not disclose a cause of action within the court's jurisdiction as it sought both civil and quasi-criminal remedies, which were beyond the court's jurisdiction. The court also found that the counterclaim was not amendable to disclose a cause of action within the court's jurisdiction. The court held that there was no error of law in the Magistrates' Court's decision to summarily dismiss the counterclaim.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Magistrates' Court. The court did not order any costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.