Garrett v Rann

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This application was instituted on 2 February 2007. I did not consider that it was in an appropriate form, upon first examining it, so I directed that it not be served prior to the first directions hearing. 2 On 21 February 2007, I raised with the applicant my concerns about the quality of proceeding. As a result of that, he was given leave to amend his application by substituting claims that an order be made under O 80 of the Federal Court Rules in respect of "pro bono" legal aid, and that orders be made to provide for pre-action discovery under O 15A of the Rules. That was a consequence of the applicant indicating that he did not confidently assert a cause of action against any of the respondents at present, and that in essence his application was for pre-action discovery. 3 He was given leave to file such further affidavits as he may be advised in support of his application, and directed to file in draft form the formal orders which he sought severally against each respondent, by 4 April 2007. By the same date, he was directed to file a brief outline of his submission identifying separately with respect to each of the respondents the nature of the final relief which he has reasonable cause to believe he may have against that respondent, and the provision of the statute under which this Court has jurisdiction to grant such relief. The applicant has not complied with those directions and no further documents have been filed. 4 The only other document which has been filed is an affidavit of the applicant filed at the same time as the application. It is lengthy, discursive, disjointed, and in large measure incomprehensible. Although in affidavit form, and supported by various exhibits comprising the "constitution" of various companies, photographs of car racing teams, wine labels, various trust deeds, appointments of trustees, and decisions made by the Environment Resources and Development Court of South Australia and a subsequent appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia in City of Mitcham v Mol Pty Ltd [2003] SASC 155 (in which the fifth respondent was one member of the Court), those annexures are uninformative. They do not support the claim for pre-action discovery now sought to be maintained. 5 The affidavit itself to a large extent mirrors the statement of claim against National Australia Bank Ltd in matter SAD 16 of 2007. I have given judgment in that matter today: Garrett v National Australia Bank [2007] FCA 530. I dismissed that application because it discloses no arguable cause of action and the statement of claim is oppressive, embarrassing and vexatious. I will not repeat what I there said, but the comments there are equally applicable to the contents of this affidavit. 6 The part of the affidavit addressing the circumstances of the particular respondents is contained in paragraphs 51-53 of the affidavit. 7 Apart from annexing a copy of the Supreme Court decision to which I have referred, the fifth respondent is asserted to have been biased and prejudiced so that he should have not have sat on that appeal. There is no foundation in the statement of claim or in the affidavit to support those assertions. They are inappropriately made in the circumstances. Nor is there any suggestion that there is a need for pre-action discovery to maintain that claim. If the appellant had such concern of ostensible bias on the part of the fifth respondent, his appropriate course was to object at the time to that judge sitting on the appeal. He did not apparently do so. 8 The claim against the remaining respondents is expressed in the following terms in par 53: 53. The Honourable Paul Holloway MP & The Honourable Premier Michael Rann MP & Moratorium on Development in the Hills face Zone. 53.1 Sometime after or prior to the handing down of the Decision of a Master in Action 1506 of 2003 to grant possession of the property known as Springwood Park to the Applicant National Australia Bank the premier and the Minister for planning were lobbied by various self interest groups in respect of the property known as Springwood Park 53.2 Mitcham Council, The Hills Face Network, The Conservation Council and others asserted that the property should be acquired by the Government through the funding available through the programme for Metropolitan Open Space (MOS). 53.3 In order to be successful with a bid the Minister declared a Moratorium on development in the Hills Face Zone. 53.4 This was specifically engineered to reduce the value of the property from its pre moratorium value. 53.5 Previous proposals put to successive governments included; 53.5.1 $250million Development with 30 allotments 6 Star boutique Underground Hotel incorporating Carrick hill put up by me to the Olsen Government 53.5.2 300 allotment development put up to the prior labour governments by the prior owners. 53.6 The controlling minds of Mitcham City Council are the Councillors who have been in office during the period 1996 until today's date. 53.7 The Controlling minds of the Conservation council during this period have included 53.7.1 Marcus Beresford 53.7.2 Jasmine Rose.