Turner v Troedson

[2019] WADC 37

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   TURNER -v- TROEDSON [2019] WADC 37

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

HEARD:   14 MARCH 2019

DELIVERED          :   21 MARCH 2019

FILE NO/S:   CIV 2752 of 2018

BETWEEN:   STEVEN JAMES TURNER

Plaintiff

AND

RUSSELL G TROEDSON

First Defendant

VICTOR LAWRENCE WYCOCO

Second Defendant

DANIEL CHUN M WONG

Third Defendant

DIETER GEORG WEBER

Fourth Defendant

TOBY TROUP NICHOLS

Fifth Defendant

LEAH MARGARET POWER

Sixth Defendant

STEPHAN ALEXANDER SCHUG

Seventh Defendant

SWITHIN JOSEP SONG

Eighth Defendant

JAMES HAN-SU SEOW

Ninth Defendant

KAY-VIN LAM

Tenth Defendant

EAST METROPOLITAN HEALTH SERVICES

Eleventh Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out or dismiss plaintiff's claim - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Claim struck out

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
First Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Second Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Third Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Fourth Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Fifth Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Sixth Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Seventh Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Eighth Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Ninth Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Tenth Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva
Eleventh Defendant	:	Mr B J Silva

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
First Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Second Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Third Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Fourth Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Fifth Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Sixth Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Seventh Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Eighth Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Ninth Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Tenth Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)
Eleventh Defendant	:	Hall & Wilcox (Perth)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:

1. This matter was commenced by a writ filed on 25 July 2019.  The numerous defendants are doctors employed by or working at Royal Perth Hospital which is more properly known as the East Metropolitan Health Service and the Hospital itself.

2. The plaintiff was unfortunate enough to be injured in a motor vehicle accident whilst he was riding a motorbike.  He alleges that the injuries so inflicted were deliberate and he also alleges that in receiving treatment for his injuries the doctors concerned in his treatment implanted various electronic devices which affected his mental function.  That is the basis upon which the plaintiff sues.

3. The indorsement of claim is extensive and is 17 pages in length, however I think the following portion of the indorsement sets out the nature of the plaintiff's claim and forms the basis of his claim.

   I am also going to prove I believe the first case of psychotronics and psychological warfare it is mind Control Psychotronic torture which is an act of terrorism which is controled [sic] and manipulated by implantable microchips and also electromagnetic low frequency receiving devices which is NFC meaning Nerve frequency communication which I am more than 110% positive I've been implanted with, without my consent or my knowledge until I had the experiences I have which I would never like any person to ever have to endure.

4. The individuals who are named on the writ of summons as defendants are effectively a catalogue of most of the doctors who have had any involvement in the treatment of the plaintiff in relation to his hospitalisation.  The defendant has applied for an order dismissing the claim and striking out the indorsement of claim and that is the matter with which I am required to deal.  The application is supported by an affidavit of Mr Sasha Mikulich dated 6 September 2018 and a further affidavit by the same deponent dated 18 October 2018.  The application is opposed by the plaintiff and he has filed an affidavit dated 21 September 2018 comprising 264 pages.  That affidavit and the conduct of the plaintiff in court satisfies me that the plaintiff has a genuine belief that during the course of his admission to Royal Perth Hospital what he describes as psychotronic devices which were capable of controlling his behaviour and mental state were inserted into his body and that those devices are affecting his mental state and general wellbeing.  As far as I can see the only evidence which the plaintiff has that these devices are imbedded in his body and making him subject to control by external forces is his subjective belief that that is the case.  The objective evidence contained in the affidavits in support of the application make it clear that no such devices were in fact implanted in the plaintiff and many of the people who are named as defendants to this action had no personal contact with the plaintiff at all, but simply gave opinions on X-ray results and things of that kind.

5. Undoubtedly the plaintiff has cast his net very wide and I gather from his remarks in court and other matters that have come to my attention that he intends to spread the net even wider to add additional defendants to the writ. 

6. As I have said I have no doubt that the plaintiff genuinely believes that he has been the victim of the implantations of which he complains.  Whether or not such devices even exist is not something with which I am familiar, but it seems to me so improbable that an accident victim brought to Royal Perth Hospital for emergency treatment following serious injuries in a road accident would in fact be used as a guinea pig for some kind of experiment involving what are described as psychotronic devices.  The medical records of Royal Perth Hospital do not support such a contention.  In my view the propositions upon which the plaintiff relies, although subjectively genuinely believed, are so improbable that it is not appropriate for this action to continue or for the defendants to have to bear the costs of defending the action and as a consequence it is my view that the action should be struck out and that is the decision which I make.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.

AC
Court Officer

21 MARCH 2019