//
[2025] ACTSC 158
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-04-17
Mossop J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Re Mortimer: referral under r 6142 Citation: [2025] ACTSC 158 Hearing Date: On the papers Decision Date: 17 April 2025 Before: Mossop J Decision: (1) Pursuant to r 6142(3)(b) the Registrar is directed to reject the document. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ABUSE OF PROCESS – Referral of document for directions pursuant to Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6142 – document filed by non-party without application for joinder, sought final relief via application in proceeding and sought relief that the court had no power to make – direction made to reject document Legislation Cited: Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6142 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) Cases Cited: House v ACT [2025] ACTSC 122 Parties: Shane John Mortimer (Applicant) Paul Girrawah House (First Plaintiff) Leah Matilda House (Second Plaintiff) Australian Capital Territory (First Defendant) ACT Minister for Heritage (Second Defendant) File Number: SC 381 of 2024 MOSSOP J:
The Registrar has referred a document to me under r 6142 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). That rule applies if a document filed in court appears to the Registrar on its face to be an abuse of the Supreme Court’s process or to be frivolous or vexatious. The Registrar may reject the document or refer the document to a judicial officer for directions about how to deal with it. Where the Registrar refers the document to a judicial officer, the judicial officer may direct the Registrar to accept the document, reject the document, or reject the document unless the Supreme Court gives leave to accept the document.
The document which the Registrar has referred to me (the document) is a document which, on its face, is intended to be filed in proceedings SC 381 of 2024. Those are proceedings in which Paul and Leah House are the plaintiffs and the Australian Capital Territory and ACT Minister for Heritage are defendants. The proceedings have been the subject of an earlier decision of mine: House v ACT [2025] ACTSC 122.
The document is an application in those proceedings. The applicant and the person who sought to file the document is Shane John Mortimer. The document includes as part of the application an affidavit of Mr Mortimer.
The orders sought in the application are set out in full in an appendix to these reasons. They may be summarised as principally involving a series of orders directed to challenging whether or not the plaintiffs have a “bloodline connection” to the “Ngambri People”, the Aboriginal group identified in the underlying proceedings as the group of which the plaintiffs are a part. The nature of the orders sought varies. Some would be characterised as generally in the form of prohibitory or mandatory injunctions, some could be characterised as declaratory in nature. However, there are also claims to damages, an order seeking a “forensic audit” of the plaintiffs’ accounts, and orders that the plaintiffs “are to be charged as they are in breach of” certain identified provisions of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).
There are obvious problems with the document: (a) it is filed by a non-party and no order is sought joining him as a party to the proceeding; (b) the orders sought amount to final relief which, in the absence of any statutory provision or rule which permits it, may not be sought by application in proceeding; (c) the final relief sought includes orders, most clearly order 7, of a type which the court does not have power to make.
In those circumstances, the filing of the document amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.
The direction that I make is: (1) Pursuant to r 6142(3)(b) the Registrar is directed to reject the document.
Appendix – text of orders sought in the document 1 Canberra derives its name after the Ngambri First People. The Plaintiff PAUL GIRRAWAH HOUSE and the Second Plaintiff LEAH MATILDA HOUSE are required to prove evidence of bloodline connection to Ngambri. 2 The Plaintiff PAUL GIRRAWAH HOUSE and Second Plaintiff LEAH MATILDA HOUSE are not to charge money for cultural services stating they are Ngambri People. 3 The Plaintiff PAUL GIRRAWAH HOUSE and Second Plaintiff LEAH MATILDA HOUSE are not to use history of my Ngambri family, as they have no evidence of bloodline connection to Ngambri or the Australian Capital Territory. 4 The Plaintiff PAUL GIRRAWAH HOUSE and Second Plaintiff LEAH MATILDA HOUSE are not Ngambri People. 5 The Deed of Settlement and Release between the Defendents and the Plaintiff’s is void ab initio as the Plaintiffs have no evidence of bloodline connection to Ngambri or The Australian Capital Territory. 6 The plaintiffs have no evidence that proves a bloodline connection to Canberra or the Ngambri First People and the so-called NGUN(N)AWAL and or ONERWAL PEOPLE cannot demonstrate a bloodline connection to Ngambri. 7 The Plaintiff PAUL GIRRAWAH HOUSE and Second Plaintiff LEAH MATILDA HOUSE are to be charged as they are in breach of the following provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Current Acts Criminal Code 2002: PART 3.3 - -FRAUDULENT CONDUCT DIV 3.3.2 - - OBTAINING PROPERTY BY DECEPTION SEC 326 Obtaining property by deception DIV 3.3.3 - - OTHER INDICTABLE OFFENCES SEC 332 Obtaining financial advantage by deception DIV 3.3.4 - - SUMMARY OFFENCES FOR PT 3.3 SEC 335 Obtaining financial advantage from the Territory PART 3.4 - - FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS, INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS SEC 337 Making false or misleading statements SEC 338 Giving false or misleading information SEC 339 Producing false or misleading statements. 8 Agreements between the Ngambri People and Australian Government(s) including the Crown’s Australian Capital Territory Government, the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments, the Office of the Governor-General and The Crown in relation to the Australian Capital Territory must involve Ngambri First People with established bona fides and bloodline connection to the Australian Capital Territory. 9 Ngambri Country boundaries are defined on the ANU Cartography Map 10. The Plaintiff PAUL GIRRAWAH HOUSE’s ngambri.org website to be removed from the World Wide Web. 11 Forensic audit of the accounts of the Plaintiff PAUL GIRRAWAH HOUSE and Second Plaintiff LEAH MATILDA HOUSE evidencing income from the Crown. 12 Damages Punitive Exemplary and Compensatory are to be awarded to the applicant.
I certify that the preceding seven [7] numbered paragraphs and appendix are a true copy of the Reasons for Direction of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: 17 April 2025
House
ACT