Williamson v The Bendigo Adelaide Bank Ltd

[2012] WASCA 208

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION:   WILLIAMSON -v- THE BENDIGO ADELAIDE BANK LTD [2012] WASCA 208

CORAM:   PULLIN JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD:   12 OCTOBER 2012

DELIVERED          :   12 OCTOBER 2012

PUBLISHED           :  22 OCTOBER 2012

FILE NO/S:   CACV 55 of 2012

BETWEEN:   HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON

TANGIWAI JACQUI MAXWELL
Appellants

AND

THE BENDIGO ADELAIDE BANK LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :MASTER SANDERSON

File No  :CIV 2361 of 2011

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for an extension of time in which to appeal - Where none of the grounds of appeal have any prospect of succeeding

Practice and procedure - Application for leave to appeal - Where leave is not required

Practice and procedure - Application for leave to appeal - Where none of the grounds of appeal have any prospect of succeeding

Legislation:

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA)

Result:

Application for an extension of time in which to appeal dismissed
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Appeal dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants:     First appellant appeared in person for both appellants

Respondent:     Mr M A Cooke

Solicitors:

Appellants:     In person

Respondent:     Herbert Smith Freehills

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

Nil

1. REASONS OF THE COURT:    At the conclusion of the hearing on 12 October 2012, the court made orders dismissing the appellants' application for an extension of time in which to appeal, dismissing the appellants' application for leave to appeal and dismissing the appeal.  The court advised that reasons would be published later.  These are the reasons for the orders.

2. As well as the applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal, the court also had to consider whether the appeal should be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) which provides that an appeal may be dismissed if none of the grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of succeeding.

3. The appellants' proposed appeal is against an order made by Master Sanderson on 10 April 2012, pursuant to which the appellants were required to deliver up vacant possession of a property at 8 Mastalerz Retreat, Toodyay and to pay $285,583.88 due under a home loan agreement, and $11,627.39 due under a credit card agreement, along with interest and costs. 

4. The appeal notice was filed outside the time allowed under the rules for commencing an appeal.  The first named appellant filed an affidavit saying that as a self‑represented litigant, he did not have a full and complete understanding of court procedures and that this was the reason for the delay.  Although the appellant explained why he was out of time, an extension of time will not be granted if none of the grounds of appeal has any reasonable prospect of succeeding.  It was therefore necessary to examine the appellants' grounds of appeal.

5. There are 86 grounds of appeal.  These appellants fall into that category of litigants frequently encountered in this court and other courts around the world who advance similar eccentric arguments about the law.  The first four grounds of appeal provide a taste of what is to follow.  They read:

   1.    The Writs Number CIV 2361 that were issued out of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.  They were served on the two Corporate Entities known as HARLEY ROBERT WILLIAMSON and TANGIWAI JACQUI MAXWELL Birth Certificate Numbers 4160/1946 and 1956112453 Respectively.

   2.    The Affiant Almando TORRE completed a sworn affidavit that He served the two Defendants known as Harley‑Robert:Williamson© and Tangiwai‑Jacqui:Maxwell©.

   3.    The two living moral,sentient, beings known as Harley‑Robert:Williamson© and Tangiwai‑Jacqui:Maxwell©.  Were not the parties that were served personally.

   4.    The writs were laid on and served upon the two Birth Certificates.  By the process server and were not given to the two Moral, Sentient, Beings aforementioned in Para 3.

6. Ground 11, 12 and 13 provide further examples.  They read:

   11.    The land was Seceded from the Commonwealth of Australia, by proclamation on the 14th of May 2006.  Although not recognised as a Country by the Federal Government.  It is however a legal Entity that is recognised by the Government, and having certain rights established in law.  Having the same rights as the Hutt River Province.

   12.    Such as its right to coin its own money, print postage stamps, Promulgate it's own laws and issue Passports, lawfully.  These rights have been recognised by the Federal Department of Territories and The Commissioner of Taxation.

   13.    The Principality of Pentecost as a lawful entity has Secured, as Bailee/Bailor, by filing of UCC1 Financing Statements The land as per Certificate of Title as well as the dwellings on the aforementioned land.

7. Ground 28 reads:

   28.    The Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd is a signatory to American law such as the Patriot Act II.  The Uniform Commercial Code is incorporated in the Patriot Act II.  The Plaintiff clearly operates under American law and the Uniform Commercial Code in order to be able to trade commercially on an international basis.

8. Grounds 75 and 78 read:

   75.    The Defendants Birth Certificates are Admiralty Contracts which allow the Defendants the benefits allowed them to be paid to them via the Ceste Qui Trust.

   ...

   78.    The Secured Party's are Alien and are not members of the public but are Free Man and Woman, who are moral, freewill, sentient beings, of flesh and blood made in the image of God.

9. The Coronation Oath 1688 and the International Convention on the Abolition of Slavery and Debt Servitude also rate a mention in the list of case law appearing in the appellants' submissions.

10. An examination of the transcript of the hearing before the master on 20 March 2012 reveals that the first‑named appellant appeared in person.  It reveals that he claimed in oral submissions that he had paid moneys due to the respondent because he had 'done everything I possibly could in lawfully issuing money' and that '[j]ust because I use banking principles that not everybody knows about doesn't mean to say that I haven't paid' and that 'I'm entitled to act as a bank' (ts 6 ‑ 7).  On the hearing of this appeal, the first‑named appellant advised that was also his submission to this court.

11. Nothing in any of the grounds of appeal or the submissions provide any basis for contending that the master erred in making the orders on 10 April 2012.  None of the grounds of appeal has any reasonable prospect of succeeding.  As a result, there is no basis for granting an extension of time.

12. The appellant has applied for leave to appeal.  It is not clear why that application has been made.  If leave is not required then that is a basis for dismissing the application for leave.  Alternatively, if leave to appeal were necessary, leave would not be granted if none of the grounds had any reasonable prospect of succeeding.  The fact that no grounds have any such prospect would also justify the order dismissing the application for leave to appeal.  For these reasons the court made the orders pronounced on 12 October 2012.