Murphy v Council of the Municipality of Strathfield

Judgment 1The proceedings were commenced by notice of motion filed in December 2011, by the plaintiff, Mr Murphy, who is unrepresented. Also before the Court is a notice of motion filed by the defendant, Strathfield Council ('Council') in January 2012.

Mr Murphy's motion 2By his motion Mr Murphy seeks various orders, including firstly that: "1. I move to have this matter restored to the list so that moneys referred to as "all moneys outstanding" per a Deed of Agreement of 18 th June 1990 be paid into the Court in replacement for that which was on 20 th June 1966 forwarded to the Court which was in the nature of recoverable credit, pending a breach of the Terms by myself, upon the following affidavit evidence and grounds which have generally all resolved in the requester's favour per part 17 Notices to Admit Facts served in time and in compliance with the Rules of the Court as befits a matter incomplete not being due to the plaintiff's fault:" 3Other orders are directed to the recovery of loan moneys and a claimed guarantee, which are said to be related to the settlement of the 1964 proceedings in 1966. A chronology document by which Mr Murphy supported his case, indicates that the 1964 proceedings were concerned with a claim brought against the Council after he suffered third degree burns when he fell into 'subterranean burning combustion' at Bressington Park, Homebush. 4Orders concerning various notices which Mr Murphy has served on the defendant and others are sought, including a Notice to Admit Facts, as well as findings based on affidavits which he has sworn. It appears that Mr Murphy wishes to advance a case that there has not been proper compliance with the terms of settlement and consent orders made by the Court in 1966, through no fault of his, or of anyone on his side. Mr Murphy advances many allegations, including in respect of abuse of process and contempt of court. It is alleged that the judgement was obtained by fraud and that there have later been various relevant proceedings brought in other courts and tribunals, involving other entities. Mr Murphy also apparently seeks orders for unspecified damages, amongst other things, in respect of 'documented counts of assault' . 5The motion concludes with: "19. I move that the Court make a clear statement and quantum determination as to the practice of substituting settlements with shadow loans with evidencing shadow rates of interest for set terms and later recovering them when there has been no breach of the Terms by the settlement creditor as otherwise all matters would have to go to hearing and not settle as settlements will all be festering loans for the profit of latent financiers who purchase a highly profitable potential contingent gain and who later approach the settlement creditor to recover what may be termed a "settlement loan". 20. I move that the Court provide an adverse disincentive finding and quantum verdict in full in respect of this long standing corrosive practice which has till now had an understandably vastly corrupting effect and which those who perpetuate it would be most loathed to surrender. 21. Other orders as the Court sees fit. Should the Court not grant me my application it would indicate that the Court would allow the recovery of settlements from upright settlement creditors who have not breached their Terms and have not even received a proper settlement, or any real settlement at all, and an undesirable precedent would be created as a partially open window of opportunity for future reliance in an undesirable practice which has, over its long past, undoubtedly brought so much in the way of retirement monies for those in the know." 6The motion is supported by a detailed affidavit in which Mr Murphy refers to a practice he claims was in operation in 1964-1997, which he describes as one in which: "... the defendant's insurer, GIO, and a financier, AGC, were in the business of substituting out of court settlements upon terms not to be disclosed to plaintiffs for shadow settlement loans with a view to recovery at the end of a 30 year term (in my case) upon interest of 9.5% p.a. (presumably the applicable precedent rate of interest) compounding as a profitable practice yielding a cumulative return of 1,665% contingent upon a secured and evidenced breach of the non disclosure term by the recipient in later years. " 7Mr Murphy explains in the affidavit that he sought to recover the settlement moneys paid into Court in 1966. He referred to an approach he received from a 'finance specialist agent' in 1990, and to a deed of agreement which he later entered, which disclosed that the confidentiality of the terms of settlement reached in 1966 had been breached. It is not suggested that the defendant was a party to this deed. Mr Murphy also referred to the defendant's breach of a 'guarantee' in August 2011. 8Mr Murphy gave a detailed account of his dealings with various persons and companies in relation to financial matters, as well as an outline of other proceedings in which he has apparently been involved with other parties in the District and Local Courts, as well as proceedings which he brought in this Court in 2005 against 'the guarantor' AGC. He recounted that in 1999, he had inspected this Court's 1964 file, an analysis of which had 'disclosed a variety of linkages, chronological, accountwise, identitywise and triggerwise' between the matters there dealt with and the approach he received in 1990. 9Mr Murphy also explained the extensive steps he has since taken to pursue various matters of concern to him, including the service of Notices to Admit Facts, interrogatories and Notices to Admit Authenticity of Documents, on various bodies including the Council, the Crown Solicitor, Centrelink and the GIO. It is not necessary to outline all of the other matters of concern, which Mr Murphy there explains in detail, which concern the matters I have already referred to, as well as other matters concerning various other individuals and entities, including for example Westpac. 10It is necessary to refer to advice which Mr Murphy claims to have received from Duty Registrars of this Court on at least two occasions, that in order to have the 1964 proceedings restored to the list, he should file a motion and ask to have the file retrieved from storage. Mr Murphy also gave an account of the Court's unsuccessful endeavours to locate that file; of his understanding at one time, that the defendant no longer had a copy of its file in the proceedings, but later that it did and of FOI applications which he made about this matter. 11Various documents were annexed to Mr Murphy's affidavit, including advice given him by the defendant in August 2011, reiterating that it denied any breach or liability to Mr Murphy in respect of claims which he had advanced about the 1966 settlement; that it did not admit the facts or authenticity of documents which he had pursued; and that in its view, the proceedings were finalised in 1966.