Wride v Schulze

[2004] FCA 281

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wride v Schulze [2004] FCA 281

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleadings – application to strike out statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action – application to have proceedings summarily dismissed – no reasonable cause of action – pleadings struck out – application dismissed.

Federal Court Rules O 11; O 12 r 2; O 20 r 2

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 applied

DONALD CHARLES WRIDE v HOWARD K SCHULZE AND G E HABEL

S 175 OF 2002

LANDER J
ADELAIDE
23 MARCH 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 175 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	DONALD CHARLES WRIDE APPLICANT
AND:	HOWARD K SCHULZE FIRST RESPONDENT
AND:	G E HABEL SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 MARCH 2004
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Pursuant to O 11 r 16 the amended statement of claim is struck out.

2.        Pursuant to O 20 r 2 the applicant’s application is dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs including the costs ordered by the Full Court to be costs in the cause.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 175 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	DONALD CHARLES WRIDE APPLICANT
AND:	HOWARD K SCHULZE FIRST RESPONDENT
AND:	G E HABEL SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	LANDER
DATE:	23 MARCH 2004
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant, who is unrepresented, has brought proceedings against his former patent attorneys.  In action number S 176 of 2002 the same applicant has brought proceedings against IP Australia in relation to the same matters raised in these proceedings (‘the IP proceedings’).  The two matters were heard together because the parties have a common interest. 

2. In these proceedings, the applicant claims in his application filed on 19 July 2002:

   ‘1.Compensation for loss of income from patent rights that were fraudulently taken away from the inventor, DC Wride, by his patent agents Mr JC Schmidt and Mr GE Habel in collusion with the Australian Patent Office who the commissioner at that time was Mr KB Petersson, who in turn were in collusion with the Federal Liberal Party and government.

   2.All monies paid, for patents and services over this whole period of time, reimbursed to the inventor.’

3. He seeks the same relief in paragraph 1 of the application in the IP proceedings which was also filed on 19 July 2002.

4. Both applications were accompanied by an affidavit each of which was in similar terms to the other.

5. It is not necessary, because of events which have transpired, to identify the claims in those affidavits.

6. In both proceedings, the respective respondents issued a notice of motion seeking to have the proceedings dismissed.

7. The two applications were originally heard by the same judge of this Court (the primary judge).

8. In both cases, the primary judge dismissed the applicant’s application…