Rana v Goldney

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is yet another proceeding brought by Mr Rana arising out of a medical examination which was arranged by the Australian Government Solicitor in respect of proceedings which Mr Rana has brought against a number of parties in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. On 17 March 2008 I dismissed a proceeding which had been brought against the University of Adelaide, the Repatriation Commission, the Australian Government Solicitor and the Chief of Army, which arose out of the same complaint. 2 The proceeding which has been brought today is no different to that which was dismissed summarily on 17 March 2008. Mr Rana has said that since that proceeding was dismissed he has received advice from Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd on 19 March 2008 that Professor Robert Goldney, who was the medical practitioner who examined Mr Rana at the behest of the Australian Government Solicitor, has permission to use the Adelaide Clinic's consulting suites for his private patients. 3 He was advised that Professor Goldney is a regular tenant of the Adelaide Clinic. He was further advised that Professor Goldney's title was not bestowed upon him by the Adelaide Clinic and that the Adelaide Clinic has an agreement with the University of Adelaide to share the Chair of Psychiatry position. Mr Rana says that that evidence discloses that the University of Adelaide was in breach of the deed of agreement which is referred to in my reasons of 17 March 2008 and further evidence of a breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Indeed, the letter is nothing of the kind. 4 The letter simply responds to a request from Mr Rana as to Professor Goldney's relationship with the Adelaide Clinic. He is, as Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd says, apparently, a regular tenant of the Adelaide Clinic where he examines his private patients. He is also, or was at the relevant time, a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Adelaide. The fact that the Adelaide Clinic has an agreement with the University of Adelaide to share the Chair of Psychiatry position is not relevant to any claim that Mr Rana might have. 5 When the application was filed in the Court I directed that it not be served upon the respondents so that the respondents would not be put to the cost of this application. I explained to Mr Rana that this application is no more than an abuse of the processes of the Court. I explained to Mr Rana that these proceedings, which are brought too frequently, must stop and he must use this Court only for the purpose for which the Court has been erected and that is for the consideration of claims under a statute of the Commonwealth.