Menu

Notice

The assertions on this website are assertions as to my opinions. My opinions are founded on the evidence provided on this website.

My assertions are not assertions of fact.

Readers should reject my assertions and then form their own opinions from the evidence provided.

My opinions and evidence as to my opinions were substantially before the Supreme Court of Victoria and are a matter of public record.

Justices Neave and Mandie declined to adjudicate on whether or not my opinions, expressed as allegations, are "unfounded".

******

This website is provided as a matter of public interest and public importance. Nothing is more important than the proper administration of justice. It is the cornerstone of our democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credits

 

The 2005 Strike-out Application

The Misrepresentations before Master Efthim

Mr. J. Delany S.C., under instruction from Maddocks squarely represented that 2-lot plans of subdivision enable avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and that the document entitled "Book of Pleadings" disclosed my knowledge of this back in 1991. These representations were false, misleading and intended to deceive.

In my opinion the evidence set out below and on linked pages leads to the conclusion that these representations were carefully planned knowing full well that they were false.

 

 

Layman's synopsis

  • The 2005 Supreme Court proceeding before Master Efthim was brought by the Council and Water Authority to strike out my proceeding against them before trial.  A strike-out application will save the expense and bother of a trial if a case is doomed to fail because there is a good and obvious defence such as the facts known too long ago.

  • My court case was based on the fact that the Council, with the Water Authority's complicity, sealed the plans of subdivision for both Tylden Rd and Woodleigh Heights knowing that the services were not present and there was no lawful way of compelling the developer to provide those services, and thereby enabling the developer to sell before he was lawfully entitled to.

  • The specific "cause of action" in relation to Tylden Rd was that a Notice of Requirement (to provide the services) was never issued.  The specific "cause of action" in relation to Woodleigh Heights was that the water supply required by the planning permit had never been completed.

  • The lawyers for the Council and Water Authority misled Master Efthim by saying that the that the "cause of action" in relation to Tylden Rd was about unlawful plans, which I knew about years ago, and creating confusion about the fact that there were two different water supplies related to Woodleigh Heights, and asserting that I was trying to litigate things which I knew about too long ago.

  • My hypothesis is that the lawyers' argument for strike-out began as an overzealous mistake by Steven Mark Edward which escalated into the misrepresentations to Master Efthim.

  • My legal team, instead of asserting the true "causes of action", contributed to the mess.

  • Master Efthim was misled by all these misrepresentations about "unlawful" plans and water supplies.

  • In relation to Tylden Rd, Master Efthim did not adjudicate on whether or not I knew the Notice of Requirement had never been served but instead found that I knew about "unlawful" plans (which I did, but they had nothing to do with the price of fish).

  • In relation to Woodleigh Heights, Master Efthim did not adjudicate on whether or not I knew that the water supply required by the planning permit had never been completed.  Instead he adjudicated on the fact that I knew that "a" water supply, any old water supply, existed.

Background

In 2005, I issued a Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This proceeding related to two subdivisions, Tylden Rd and Woodleigh Heights. In August 2000, I had discovered that the Council had sealed the plans of subdivision for both subdivisions in full knowledge or not caring that the services had not been completed and there was no lawful means of compelling the subdivider to complete those services.

In relation to the Tylden Rd subdivision, this situation resulted from the fact that the Council had sealed the plans in full knowledge of or indifferent to the fact that it had not issued or served on the subdivider the Notice of Requirement referred to in its minutes of 20th February 1980.

In relation to Woodleigh Heights, the Council had sealed the plans knowing or not caring that the 1978 Water Supply referred to in Planning Permit 2191 had not been completed. [details of the "causes of action" here]

These things facilitated avoidance of the "effect" of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 and in the case of Tylden Rd also enabled the avoidance of the "effect" of section 97 of the Transfer of Land Act and enabled the developer Kenneth Raymond Buchanan to sell the land before he was lawfully entitled to sell it.

In relation to Tylden Rd, both the Council and Water Authority had concealed this "cause of action" from previous Courts and from me by a variety of means including perjury, falsification of documents and false admissions. [details here]

In relation to Woodleigh Heights, the Council concealed the fact that the 1978 water supply was an approved supply which entitled me to building permits. This remained concealed until discovered by me in August 1995. Then subsequent to August 1995, the Council and Water Authority concealed the fact that the 1978 water supply had not been completed at all because the water mains had not been laid. [details here]

This concealment was manifest. In the case of Tylden Rd both the Magistrate and Justice Kaye based their judgments on the false evidence that the Notice of Requirement had been served. In the case of Woodleigh Heights the implementation of the "proviso" depended upon concealing the fact that the 1978 water supply was an approved "reticulated water supply" for the purpose of building permits.

The Statement of Claim in the 2005 proceeding set out many unlawful things done by the Council and Water Authority, however to any competent lawyer the "causes of action" were plain and could not be construed to be anything other than the things described above. The Statement of Claim alleged that these things were done for the purpose of avoiding the "effect" of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. No other thing in the Statement of Claim related to avoiding the "effect" of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. The remaining things set out in the Statement of Claim related to acts of fraudulent concealment of these things and acts of fraud as a consequence of these things.

The word "effect" was very carefully pleaded in relation to both Tylden Rd and Woodleigh Heights.

The Strike-out Application

Shortly after I issued the Statement of Claim, the Council and Water Authority made application to the Court to have my proceeding struck out without going to trial.

The grounds for the strike-out application were that the "causes of action":

  1. were known to me too long ago.
  2. had allready been alleged in previous proceeding.
  3. could have been alleged in previous proceedings.
  4. were the subject of "Terms of Settlement" (releases) in previous proceeding
  5. Had not been concealed by the Council and Water Authority.

The lawyers for the Council and Water Authority could not argue these things in relation to the true "causes of action" set out in the Statement of Claim. The true "causes of action" had been overtly concealed. In addition, the previous proceedings alleged the polar opposite of what was now alleged. In the previous Tylden Rd proceeding, I claimed that the Notice of Requirement had been served, whereas the present proceeding claimed it had not been served. In the previous Woodleigh Heights proceeding, I claimed that the 1978 water supply had been completed and that I had an entitlement to that water supply, whereas the present proceeding claimed it had not been completed. These things are mutually exclusive. Being mutually exclusive the true "causes of action" were not previously alleged and could not have been alleged at the time of the previous proceedings and were not the subject of releases in the previous proceedings.

The lawyers for the Council and Water Authority developed a strategy to deceive the court

The evidence indicates that being unable to mount a strike-out application in relation to the true "causes of action" the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority developed a strategy to mislead the court. Full details of the planning and execution of this strategy are set out on the Lying Lawyers page of this website however I suggest reading this page in its entirety before checking the links.

This strategy of the lawyers for the Counsel and Water Authority was to misrepresent:

And to omitt all consideration and reference to section 97 of the Transfer of Land Act.

The "Book of Pleadings" is a document prepared by me in 1991. It unequivocally sets out that 2-lot plans of subdivision do not and cannot faciltate avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1962.

The specific misrepresentations of Mr. J. Delany S.C. under instruction from Ms Michelle Elizabeth Dixon of Maddocks.

Mr. J Delany SC for the Council read selected extracts from pages 2 to 10 of the "Book of Pleadings" including my handwritten comment "Although Buchanan thought that he had exploited a loophole in the law, he had in fact broken the law", then at page 88 of the transcript, in the face of the facts and the law before him, Delany said:

"In order to avoid the provisions of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act ...... ... Buchanan then lodged - what did he do? He lodged seven separate plans which were contrived, written in the plaintiff's own hand, to create several subdivisions of two lots each"; AND

"This is the critical piece of information you're being told that this poor man didn't find out until 2000 ...."

By these representation and by omitting reference to section 97 of the Transfer of Land Act Delany squarely misrepresented what constituted the "cause of action" in relation to Tylden Rd.

These plans did not and could not form any part of the "cause of action" and in any event at its paragraph 51 my affidavit squarely stated that I learned about these plans when my lawyer Danny Ginsburgh told me about them. [details]

Each and every one of these representations by Mr. J. Delany S.C. was manifestly false.

  • The first of these representations is manifestly false. It is not possible to construe section 9 of the Sale of Land Act as having any such effect at all. Mr. Delany is a Senior Counsel, the modern equivalent of a Queens Counsel, the next step is Judge. As I will demonstrate shortly he must have read section 9 and I suspect that he really did know full well what it's provisions were. Notably had Delany stated the true provisions of section 9 then the lie would have been given to the rest of his planned submissions and the scheme to deceive the court would have been at an end. It is plain that section 9 applied where the intent is to subdivide into three or more allotments and it is plain that Buchanan's intent in respect to Tylden Rd was 18 allotments. Mr. Delany could not state the true provisions and then continue to make his remaining planned misrepresentations.

  • The second and third representations were false. 2-lot plans do not and cannot facilitate avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. [details] As stated Mr. Delany is an S.C. etc,.

  • The representations in relation to the "Book of Pleadings" are overtly false.
    • The "Book of Pleadings" sets out in a clear and unequivocal manner that 2-lot plans do not and cannot facilitate avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act.
      • At the bottom of this page the "Book of Pleadings" contains a copy of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. The words "or where in respect of any land such a notice is required to be given" are clearly underlined so that Delany and the rest of the lawyers or whoever else read it could understand the law.
      • On the next page the "Book of Pleadings" states that "Notwithstanding it was illegal Buchanan had sold at least two of the allotments" and "Buchanan then lodged seven separate plans which were contrived to create several subdivisions of two lots each"
      • The next page states "Buchanan lodged 30th Schedule Notices in relation to these new contrived plans"
      • Two pages later the "Book of Pleadings" states "Although Buchanan thought he had exploited the a loophole in the law he had in fact broken the law because as it was his clear intention to subdivide the land into 18 allotments he was bound to give one 30th Schedule Notice and one plan showing all allotments". Immediately below this note is a copy of section 569(1) of the Local Government Act 1956 which plainly provides that Buchanan was required to give notice of his intention to subdivide into 18 allotments.

  • Delany's last representation, "This is the critical piece of information you're being told that this poor man didn't find out until 2000 ...." is an overt fabrication where Delany expressly misrepresents that the matters and things contained in the "book of pleadings" are or are one and same as the matters and things constituting the "causes of action" discovered by me in 2000.

  • Each of these misrepresentations depended upon omission of and reference to section 97.

In other words the "Book of Pleadings" overtly states and provides copies of the law which state that section 9 applies where the intention is three or more allotments and that although Buchanans Plans were contrived to avoid section 9 the fact was that he had not avoided the law, he had in fact broken the law. It can't get clearer or more simple. It was set out in almost childish simplicity that 2-lot plans do not and cannot faciliate avoidance of section 9. Mr. Delany's representations were overtly false and made in the face of the law and the facts clearly and expressly set out in the "Book of Pleadings" and demonstrably read by him.

In the premise that any one of the bevy of lawyers understood either section 9 of the Sale of Land Act or the things expressly stated in the "Book of Pleadings" then Delany's "last representation" was a damn deceitful lie intented to deceive the court. The only other alternative is the unimaginable, collective and individual, incompetence of these lawyers that they did not understand these things. [complete "book of pleadings here]

In addition it is manifest that these series of 2-lot plans of subdivision did not and could not of themselves cause any loss and damage and consequently did not and could not of themselves constitute any part of the "cause of action" alleged in the 2005 Amended Statement of Claim. So even if the 2-lot plans did enable avoidance of section 9 they still could not and did not form any part of the "cause of action"

The further misrepresentations of Delany

At paragraph 54 of their Outline of Submissions Delany and his junior Mr. G Ahen said "It is apparent from the Thompson summary judgment affidavit that the 'critical document' from the black folder which led Mr. Thompson to reach the conclusions which now underpin the allegations .... was the copy of the 'complete plans' ..... No other documents from the black folder are mentioned by Mr. Thompson in his affidavit as assisting him in reaching the conclusions he did." They also say similar things at their paragraph 36 and elsewhere in their Outline of Submissions. [paragraph 54 here] [complete outline here]

This statement by Delany and Ahern is an outright fabrication. As detailed in the Lying Lawyers page this statement evolved from a particularly convenient "understanding" of Ms. Dixon. Delany and Ahern then doctored Dixon's "understanding" to become a "true lie" which Master Efthim subsequently relied upon virtually verbatim. [refer to the "true lies" section of the Lying Lawyers page]

In addition the overt representation of Delany and Ahern is that this "critical document" is evidence of the "cause of action" as defined by them and as we see above their rendition of the "cause of action" and the law and the "Book of Pleadings" are a complete fabrication.

The purpose of this particular fabrication by Delany and Ahern was so that Delany could falsely represent to the Court that the Council had openly disclosed their rendition of the "cause of action"..

There is no document anywhere in the world or which is capable of existing that provides evidence of the facts and law as fabncated and misrepresented by Dixon, Delany and Ahern. Every aspect is a concoction which only existed in their minds.

These fabrications were built around misrepresenting the content of the "Book of Pleadings"

In my view the evidence which I have provided on the Lying Lawyers page suports a view that Steven Mark Edward provided the copy of the "Book of Pleadings" and the lawyers cooperated with one another to fabricate a coordinated series of submissions designed and intended to miselad the Court..

The submissions by Dixon, Delany and Ahern were in the face of everything;

The above misrepresentations were carefully planned, full details of the planning and the execution of the strategy are set out on the Lying Lawyers Part One page.

The submissions in relation to Woodleigh Heights

In relation to Woodleigh Heights, the lawyers falsely represented that the water supply provided pursuant to the "Water Supply Agreement" (the 1982 water supply) was relevant to the "cause of action" and that I knew about the 1982 water supply in 1987 if not before. On the facts squarely before the lawyers, the 1982 water supply was evidence of nothing. My "cause of action" related to the lake, tanks etc that were approved as part of the planning permit. The lawyers overtly misled Master Efthim by representing that I knew about "a" water supply.

My lawyers' submissions

I was represented by Mr. John Middleton QC (now Justice Middleton of the Federal Court) and Mr. Neil Adams Barrister. It appears to me that they may have become beguiled by the arguments by Dixon and Delany at al. Middleton and Adams did not alert the Master that he was being led up the garden path. They did not set out the true "causes of action". They carelessly and negligently misrepresented me and my case. [details here]

Master Efthim's Reasons for Decision

Master Efthim's Reasons for Decision are remarkable in that in relation to Tylden Rd he did not define the matter or thing in respect to which he made judgment. I am therefore left to deduce what he adjudicated upon however as detailed below it is possible to demonstrate that he did not adjudicate upon the matters and things constituing the true "cause of action" namely that the Council had abandoned the 18-lot plan of subdivision and did not serve the Notice of Requirment related to it AND it sealed the plans of subdivision in breach of its statutory duty to refuse to seal the plans.

Master Efthim and Tylden Rd

First of all to demonstrate that Master Efthim did not adjudicate on the matters and things constiuting the true "cause of action" which in the strike-out proceeding would have required him to adjudicate on whether or not I was previously aware that the Notice of Requirement related to the 18-lot plan had never been served.

At his paragraph 35, Master Efthim purports to transcribe relevant extracts from my affidavit. The notable thing about this paragraph is that it contains nothing to show I was previously aware of the true "cause of action", but instead contains material to show that I was previously aware of the irrelevant "unlawful" plans. At the final subparagraph he says:

This shows that Master Efthim had been misled by the lawyers and was only considering sealing of "unlawful" plans. It was perfectly reasonable for Master Efthim to be mystified that I claimed that the evidence of Mr. Wilson had the effect of concealing the Council's true conduct from the Court and myself when I clearly knew about the "unlawful" plans years before. Master Efthim strongly expressed his disbelief at his paragraph 55 where he says:

Little wonder that Master Efthim expressed disbelief! He had been cleverly deceived into believing that the "cause of action" related to unlawful sealing of "unlawful" plans for the purpose of avoiding section 9 and that I had claimed that the "unlawful" nature of these plans had been concealed from me. Unlawful plans did not constitute the cause of action and I had never claimed that they had been concealed from me.

Master Efthim could not be both aware of the true "cause of action" and hold a belief as to his paragraph 55. Had he been aware of the true "cause of action", he would have been fully aware that the Magistrate, Justice Kaye and I had been misled. Manifestly the fact that the Notice of Requirement had not been served had been concealed from the Courts and the Council's true conduct was thereby concealed. The Magistrate and Justice Kay made their judgments on the express understanding and belief that it had been served. The Courts were deceived and so was I. [see concealment]

Master Efthim was squarely misled, he adjudicated on the specific misrepresentations of Dixon, Delany, Ahern, Middleton and Adams.

Master Efthim was squarely and manifestly misled by the lawyers' submissions that "unlawful" plans and "unlawful" sealing for the purpose of avoiding section 9 constituted the "cause of action". At paragraph 53 of his Reasons for Decision, Master Efthim said:

"It is clear from Mr. Thompson's first affidavit that the critical documents from the black folder which led to this matter being further litigated are the complete versions of the plans of the industrial allotments....." (my emphasis)

Master Efthim then went on to specifically rely upon the affidavits and Outline of Dixon, Delany and Ahern to conclude that I had possession of those "critical documents" since May 1989. Then at his paragraph 54, Master Efthim says, "...on the material before me there has been nothing concealed from Mr. Thompson...."

Now the so called "critical document" was in fact a cooperative fabrication of Dixon, Delany and Ahern which became a "true damn lie". [see Lying Lawyers]

As I have detailed above the "cause of action" expressed by the Delany was nothing more than a fabrication of the the lawyers collective minds as was the so called "critical document". The manifest fact is that there is no document in the world or which is capable of existing at all which could constitute a "crifical document" demonstrating as fact the fantastic fabrication put to the court by Dixon, Delany and Ahern.

Master Efthim was deceived and his Reasons for Judgment are the intended and predictable product of that deception.

Master Efthim and Woodleigh Heights

In relation to Woodleigh Heights, Master Efthim did not adjudicate in relation to my knowledge as to when the water main for the 1978 water supply had been laid.

At paragraph 60 of his Reasons for Decision, Master Efthim says:

"Mr. Thompson was aware from at least 1987 that the reticulation water supply was laid in 1982. I have been referred by the First Defendant to a letter dated 24th August 1987, where Mr. Thompson wrote to the First Defendant .....I have read that letter ......inconsistent with the allegations made by Mr. Thompson ...... "

This letter contains everything I knew at the time about the crookery of the Council and Water Board. It clearly sets out my knowledge of the unlawful 1982 water supply and Water Supply Agreement. This letter says more from what it doesn't say than from what it does. It contains nothing of the 1978 water supply and particularly nothing of the reticulation system. Master Efthim was misled into believing that it was knowledge of "a" water supply which was relevant, and while the 1982 water supply is certainly "a" water supply, it was neither lawful nor the one related to the "cause of action". Knowledge of that 1982 water supply did not and could not include knowledge of the 1978 water supply or its reticulation system. The lawyers failed to differentiate between the 1978 water supply and the 1982 water supply. Master Efthim was misled by deceitful obfuscation.

Master Efthim did not adjudicate on the "cause of action" that the 1978 water supply had not been completed.

The consequences...

By misrepresenting the facts, the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority obtained a false judgment against me. The true "causes of action" were explicitly set out in the Amended Statement of Claim but Master Efthim did not adjudicate on any aspect of those "causes of action". He was expertly misled.

That Master Efthim was misled in such a manner does not excuse him. It is manifest that "unlawful plans" per se cannot cause loss and damage, cannot and do not facilitate avoidance of s.9 and in any event once sealed they are lawful. It is also manifest that the 1982 water supply was unlawful and irrelevant. The true "causes of action" and relevant facts were set out in my affidavit and Amended Statement of Claim and were squarely before Master Efthim. He adjudicated on the wrong things and exactly as intended by Dixon, Delany and Ahern et al.

Master Efthim's neglect

The proceeding before Master Efthim was a strike out proceeding purportedly predicated on as assertion by the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority that the "causes of action" had been (a) previously set out, (b) could have been previously set out, or (c) were the subject of releases. The lawyers specifically and manifestly misrepresented the law and the facts.. At the very least, for the proper conduct of the proceeding, Master Efthim should have had a look at section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and section 97 of the Transfer of Land Act . He appears not to have done so, alternatively and unimaginably he misunderstood it. This is neglect. Master Efthim also read the "Book of Pleadings" he quoted from it in his Reasons for Decision.

Even if Garde, Edward, Delany, Ahern, Dixon et al. carelessly or mistakenly made their misleading submissions before Master Efthim, they were made fully aware of that error upon receiving my submissions to Justice Osborn. At that point, they had the option of righting that wrong or holding the line. They chose to hold the line and Justice Osborn accommodated them.

 

[Master Efthim's complete Reasons may be viewed here]

*******

The lawyers who appeared before Master Efthim were:

**********

Top of Page ------ Menu Page