Wride v Schulze

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter the applicant, who is unrepresented, has brought proceedings against his former patent attorneys. In action number S 176 of 2002 the same applicant has brought proceedings against IP Australia in relation to the same matters raised in these proceedings ('the IP proceedings'). The two matters were heard together because the parties have a common interest. 2 In these proceedings, the applicant claims in his application filed on 19 July 2002: '1. Compensation for loss of income from patent rights that were fraudulently taken away from the inventor, DC Wride, by his patent agents Mr JC Schmidt and Mr GE Habel in collusion with the Australian Patent Office who the commissioner at that time was Mr KB Petersson, who in turn were in collusion with the Federal Liberal Party and government. 2. All monies paid, for patents and services over this whole period of time, reimbursed to the inventor.' 3 He seeks the same relief in paragraph 1 of the application in the IP proceedings which was also filed on 19 July 2002. 4 Both applications were accompanied by an affidavit each of which was in similar terms to the other. 5 It is not necessary, because of events which have transpired, to identify the claims in those affidavits. 6 In both proceedings, the respective respondents issued a notice of motion seeking to have the proceedings dismissed. 7 The two applications were originally heard by the same judge of this Court (the primary judge). 8 In both cases, the primary judge dismissed the applicant's application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. 9 The primary judge found that the Federal Court of Australia did not have jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of the applicant's applications and the proceedings were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 10 In both cases, the applicant appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court and after a short hearing in the Full Court orders were made, by consent, setting aside the orders of the primary judge and remitting both matters to a single judge for further hearing. 11 The Full Court did not give reasons because the orders were by consent, but a perusal of the transcript of the hearing in that Court indicates that there was a suggestion that the orders made by the primary judge dismissing the applications might have been premature because, on the affidavits supporting the applicant's applications, it was difficult to discern precisely the cause of action pursued and, in those circumstances, difficult to discern whether the Court had jurisdiction or not. 12 I assumed responsibility for the management of the matters and, on 22 September 2003, I made directions in both matters that the applicant file and serve a statement of claim within 28 days. 13 The applicant failed to comply with that direction and the matter was called on again on 5 November 2003. 14 On that occasion, the applicant told me that he had been suffering from a medical problem and he had been unable to comply with my direction. 15 I extended the time within which he had to file the statements of claim by a further 10 days. 16 The applicant filed a statement of claim in the same form in both matters. The respective respondents in each action responded by filing a notice of motion seeking to have the applicant's proceedings summarily dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. 17 In this matter, an affidavit sworn by the respondents' solicitor was filed in support of the respondents' motion. 18 When the matter was called on for hearing, I gave leave to the respondents to amend their motion to seek the following orders: 1. An order pursuant to O 11 r 16 striking out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. 2. An order pursuant to O 20 r 2 dismissing the applicant's proceedings for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. 19 As I have said, the motion for summary dismissal in this matter was heard at the same time as that in the IP proceedings and the reasons in this matter are also apposite to the motion in the IP proceedings. 20 The respondents submitted that the applicant's statement of claim is unintelligible and impossible to address by way of reply. 21 The applicant's statement of claim is a long handwritten document which purports to join as respondents not only the respondents in each of the actions but also the State and Federal Liberal parties and governments. 22 It is not in the form of a statement of claim. It is simply a very long document which makes a number of allegations over a long period of time commencing in 1950 against a number of parties, some of whom are not parties to the action. 23 The applicant has pleaded that in 1950 Thomas Playford, the then Premier of South Australia, abused his public office and engaged in a conspiracy with the applicant's uncle and the applicant's cousin to illegally acquire a property apparently in the estate of the applicant's father. It is not possible to understand how this matter is relevant to any claim against the respondents but the statement of claim suggested that particular matter 'was only the beginning of the harassment and continuous monitoring and destroying of the Wride family of WG Wride as that government assessed them to be all uneducated fools'. The applicant is an inventor. 24 Next, it is pleaded that Sir Robert Menzies' government 'went into collusion' with Sir Thomas Playford to destroy the applicant and to prevent the Australian people from knowing they were using the applicant's inventions. To that end, it is claimed that Sir Robert Menzies used 'his Patent Office and its commissioner, Dr KB Petersson, to steal the inventions of the inventor DC Wride and destroy others so he would never be known as a true inventor'. 25 Next, it is pleaded that in doing so 'they breached the Patents Act of 1952 and 1990'. It is complained that the breach arose by the Commissioner giving the applicant bogus provisional patents for two of his inventions in July 1965. He claims that his patent attorneys had a conflict of interest and, moreover, conspired with the State and Federal governments and lied to the applicant about the patentability of his inventions. It is pleaded that another person benefited by reason of that conspiracy. 26 Next, it is claimed that 'Gillette' stole his patent for a twin-blade razor. 27 The applicant claims 'mental torture for my whole family and, the destroying of my profession, through no fault of my own, and never knowing what the problem I had was'. 28 Next, he claims that in 1969 he invented a new type of power hacksaw and obtained a provisional patent in respect of it but that it was allowed to lapse. I think it is alleged that occurred by reason of the default of his attorneys. 29 The patent office apparently renewed the provisional patent. The applicant claims that 'the patent system of Australia is flawed and unable to operate as it cannot have a Commissioner of Patents or a Deputy until a court of law examines its credibility on it (sic) and compensates the inventor DG Wride for his financial losses'. 30 Next, he claims that the patent office involved itself with 'premeditated fraud' which gave rise to his razor designs being stolen. He claims that he was a victim of fraud in relation to the patenting of a hydraulic jack which he invented. 31 He claims that he invented a retractable light tower which should have been used at the Adelaide Oval but his invention was refused by the Lord Mayor. He claims that to be a conspiracy to defraud to 'keep the public from knowing the full potential of the inventor D.G. Wride'. 32 He details other claims which he said arose out of the failure of the patent office to deal with his applications appropriately. 33 He claims that he has been the victim of a widespread conspiracy which included as conspirators the State and Federal Liberal Parties and the State and Federal governments, patent attorneys and IP Australia. 34 Attached to the statement of claim is a document entitled 'Story' which is a long history of dealings with lawyers, courts and government. 35 I am sure that the applicant firmly believes that he is the victim of the actions and inactions of other parties as a result of which he has suffered mental torture and financial loss. 36 The applicant is unrepresented and has little or no knowledge of court proceedings. I think, with respect, that the document he has put forward as his statement of claim demonstrates that.