1 On 9 February 2006 I presided at a jurisdictional hearing, held for the purpose of investigating whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine this proceeding as against the second respondent, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Limited ("TIO"). In the course of the hearing TIO applied orally for an order striking out the proceeding, as against it, for want of jurisdiction.
2 The Tribunal's register at the moment records two other respondents. The first respondent is Vodafone Pty Ltd. The other, named in the register as the third respondent, is Vodafone Australia Limited. There is doubt about whether Vodafone Australia Limited is properly a respondent. I shall refer below to the reasons for there being that doubt. What is clear, however, is that the applicant Mr David wishes Vodafone Australia Limited to be a respondent.
3 At the hearing on 9 February 2006 Mr David appeared in person. Mr James Hanna represented the two Vodafone companies. Mr Philip Carruthers represented TIO. Mr David handed to me during the hearing a bound folder containing two affidavits by him dated 8 and 7 February 2006 respectively and numerous exhibits. The earlier affidavit included the history of his dispute with the other parties, from his point of view, and argument as to why the Tribunal had jurisdiction. No copy of this folder had been given to TIO before the hearing, but Mr David gave Mr Carruthers a copy during the hearing. I stood the matter down briefly so that Mr Carruthers could take advice as to whether he should ask for an adjournment so that he could consider the material in the folder and make submissions in reply. When the hearing resumed he told me that he did not wish to apply for an adjournment but was content for the hearing to conclude on that day. I reserved my decision.
4 The facts that I set out below are drawn from statements made and information contained in Mr David's written application to the Tribunal, in the affidavits and exhibits, and in the memorandum and articles of association of TIO. For the purpose only of deciding the issue of jurisdiction, and for no other purpose, I shall assume those statements by Mr David to be true.
5 In November 2001 Mr David submitted a written application to Vodafone Pty Ltd for connection to the Vodafone mobile telephone network. The application was accepted and Mr David used the network. Vodafone Pty Ltd sent him periodic bills for the use of the network and for mobile telephone calls.
6 One of the bills included charges for mobile telephone calls made in the early evening of 13 November 2004. Mr David did not make those calls. Because the battery in the telephone was flat, nobody could have used it to make those calls. Vodafone Pty Ltd maintained that the calls were made on that telephone. He asked Vodafone Pty Ltd to remove the charges from his bill. It refused. Mr David made a complaint to TIO. Before TIO had completed an investigation of the complaint, Vodafone Pty Ltd, while disputing Mr David's allegations, decided to waive the disputed charges. It made credit entries on its statements of account to him. Mr David was not satisfied. He demanded that Vodafone Pty Ltd issue fresh invoices which contained none of the disputed charges. It declined to do so. Mr David renewed his complaint to TIO. The response from TIO was that it had determined that Mr David had been billed correctly and that the offer to waive the charges was a reasonable outcome, and that it had closed its file.
7 In his application to the Tribunal Mr David has sought an order that Vodafone issue fresh invoices that omit all references to the disputed charges. He has alleged that TIO did not investigate his complaint properly and made incorrect statements in its correspondence with him. He has claimed "exemplary damages", for the reason, so far as I can tell, that he alleges that the other parties have either permitted or covered up an illegal use of his mobile telephone.