Gill v iiNet Limited

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The respondent seeks an order under r 5.23(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) that the proceeding be dismissed on the basis that the applicant has failed to comply with an order of the Court made on 10 July 2015 which required him to serve a statement of claim by 28 August 2015. 2 Alternatively, the respondent seeks an order under r 5.23(1)(b) that the proceeding be dismissed on the basis that the applicant has failed to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence within the meaning of r 5.22 of the Rules. 3 On 9 April 2014, the applicant made a complaint against the respondent in the Australian Human Rights Commission, alleging unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). On 5 August 2014, the Commission terminated the complaint under s 46PH(1)(i) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) on the basis that the Commission was satisfied that there was no reasonable prospect of the matter being settled by conciliation. 4 On 23 October 2014, the applicant filed a claim in this Court. That application was filed out of time and the respondent has not consented to any extension of time. 5 On 8 December 2014, a directions hearing was held in which orders were made referring the matter to a Registrar of the Court for case management and mediation and the directions hearing was adjourned until 27 April 2015. 6 On 13 April 2015, a case management conference was held before Registrar Caporale. The Registrar made orders including that the applicant file and serve a statement of claim on or before 29 June 2015. 7 In view of the orders of the registrar, the directions hearing on 27 April 2015 was adjourned until 10 July 2015. 8 The applicant did not file or serve a statement of claim on or before 29 June 2015 in accordance with the order made by Registrar Caporale. 9 On 6 July 2015, the solicitors for the respondent wrote to the applicant putting him on notice that unless the proceeding was withdrawn and in view of the non-compliance of the applicant, then the respondent would seek to have the matter struck out. The letter reserved the respondent's right to claim costs, including on an indemnity basis. 10 The applicant responded to this letter on 7 July 2015 and a copy of the email was also sent to the Court. The email foreshadowed an amendment to the application in terms which were, to say the least, bizarre. As the theme of that email was repeated in later correspondence, it will be sufficient to refer to the general themes later in these reasons for judgment. 11 On 10 July 2015, a directions hearing was held and an order was made that the applicant file and serve a statement of claim by 28 August 2015. The applicant did not file or serve a statement of claim by 28 August 2015 or at all. 12 On 31 August 2015, the solicitors for the respondent sent an email to the applicant putting him on notice of the respondent's intention to apply to have the claim struck out, but offering that the respondent would not pursue any legal costs if the applicant were to discontinue the claim. The letter continued that if the applicant did not discontinue the claim immediately, the respondent would apply to have the claim struck out and reserved its right to seek payment of its costs on an indemnity basis. 13 As it happened, the applicant had responded to the respondent on 28 August 2015, but because he had used the wrong email address, the email apparently was not received. The email of 28 August 2015, however, was produced to the Court as an exhibit to the affidavit of Ms Mumme. That email sets out the applicant's position over 12 pages, much of which is not comprehensible, but the general gist seems to suggest that there is no basis to the legal system in Australia. The applicant seeks that the matter be heard under international law by justices with international recognition and authority. It asserts that there is no validity for the system of law in Australia and seeks compensation from the Court for making orders against the applicant. It seeks that the judge making the decisions and orders should be required to pay compensation to the applicant for pain and suffering which has resulted from the need to comply with the demands of the Court. 14 The following three paragraphs provide some flavour to the position put by the applicant: 4. All the officers of the court involved in this matter [for their unlawful actions] and also the presiding judge should also further compensate for the refusal to have this application heard under International Law and also to properly construct a proceeding to hear the facts that all Australian statutes are invalid; the excuse that the High Court had dealt with the matter was a pathetic response to an extremely serious subject that is at the very heart of the Sovereignty of Australia. 5. For the Federal Court to have any respect in Australia and the world, the court needs to prove it is not simply a puppet of the higher court and is more than willing to respectfully hear the facts, not just to dismiss them based on a pathetic assumption that they are the same as previously mentioned and unlawfully dismissed. This attitude has been a ridicule of the Federal Court by itself. 6. All court rules are the rules of Satan's Religion of Law in Australia, these rules are used to reject applications and submissions that do not comply with the court staff's beliefs in their Religion of Law. The church rules are also used to incarcerate people for failing to believe and submit to Satan's Religion of Law, one such classification is "contempt of court"; this is the same as ISIS does in Syria and Iraq. 15 There is a curiosity in the position taken by the applicant. On the one hand, he says that the orders made by the Court are invalid and without jurisdiction; and on the other hand, he seeks a remedy under the very law which he says is invalid. On this subject - that is to say, the claim made under the Disability Discrimination Act - the applicant makes only brief reference to the issue on page 7 of the 10 page document: There are many disabilities; some definitely cannot cope or adapt to the normal or cheap version of infrastructure the provider chooses to install or make available. A service or infrastructure is discriminatory if access is not readily available at all times for everybody - for 8 years iinet services I paid for were not available at times I could access without undue and excessive suffering. Only 50% of the access I paid for was available during 18 hours per the day [8am - 2am]; the other 50% was only available during the remaining 6 hours [2am - 8 am]. This is very close to unreasonable for every member of the community, but it was totally discriminatory for myself. 16 The email from the applicant dated 28 August 2015 is not a statement of claim. To the extent that it challenges the establishment of the legal system in Australia, it is quite irrelevant to any issue before the Court. To the extent that it refers to the original disability discrimination claim, it is not comprehensible. 17 The applicant has had three opportunities to articulate a claim. The proceeding has been on foot from October 2014 and it is unjust and unfair to expect that the respondent continue to attend the proceedings in the Court for a claim which is not put forward in a way which either conforms to the requirements of the Rules or makes any sense. 18 The respondent has established that the proceedings should be dismissed, both for the failure of the applicant to comply with the order made on 10 July 2015 to file and serve a statement of claim and because the applicant has failed to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence. Consequently, the proceeding will be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding eighteen (18) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.