Courts on Trial

Menu

• Home
• Read First
• News Flash
• Open Letters
• The Story
• The Con Man
• The Fraud
• Magistrates
  • Magistrates Courts
  • Documents
• Lying Lawyers
  • Part One
  • Part Two
• Master Efthim
• Justice Osborn
• Mandie et al.
• Other pages
• The Players
• Contact Me
• Xtra Reading

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

Until and unless the Courts address the issue of lawyers and barristers misleading the Courts with impunity then the Courts, and the justice supposedly dispensed, are a sham.

 

Lying lawyers - Details page

 

Quietly making the "Book of Pleadings" available

The strategy was in place before the strike-out summonses were issued. The Water Authority's Summons was issued on 20th September 2005 and supported by an affidavit sworn by Steven Mark Edward some eight days earlier on 12th September 2005. This affidavit refers to his exhibits SME1 volumes 1 and 2 and SME2 volumes 1 to 4 for a total of 6 volumes amounting to some 1795 pages of documents. Each and every one of these documents was a proper court document relating to the two previous proceedings except for the "Book of Pleadings" which was secreted at pages 285 to 419 of those 1795 pages.

Although critical to supporting the summonses the affidavits sworn by Dixon and Edward in purported support of their respective summonses did not even allude to the matters and things constituting the "causes of action" supposedly complained of.

There was no reason, other than the strategy, for including the "Book of Pleadings" in the exhibits and no reason for most of the remaining 1795 pages other than secreting the "Book of Pleadings". (Except maybe photocopy costs at $1.50 a page as a nice little earner)

The "Book of Pleadings" was a privileged document prepared by me for the exclusive use of my legal advisers and obtaining legal advice at the time of the 1988 Tylden Road proceeding. Steven Mark Edward improperly copied it when he was granted access to my personal files for the purpose of copying documents relevant to the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding.

For the apparent purpose of legitimising his possession of this document Edward swore the affidavits set out on the Edward page.

None of the numerous affidavits or Outlines of Submission prepared for the hearing disclosed any reliance on the "Book of Pleadings"

 

 

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

 

Keeping the strategy secret.

The strategy depended upon having me think that they were referring to the true "cause of action" whenever they referred to the "cause of action" by use of phrases such as "the claims sought to be advanced".

As the evidence discloses, each time they used such a phrase they were referring to the things constituting the the pseudo "causes of action"..

Whenever it was necessary to refer to the cause of action Delany and Ahern used phrases such the following in their First Outline; [complete First Outline here]

• paragraph 66 "the claims sought to be advanced"
• paragraph 36 "fresh allegations"
• paragraph 43 "the claims made by the plaintiffs"
• paragraph 52 " ... the cause of action..."
• paragraph 54 " ... the allegations in the omitted paragraphs ... "
• paragraph 55 " ... the events ... "
• paragraph 68 ".. the claims he now seeks to advance ... "
• paragraph 70 ".... the matters pleaded in the omitted paragraphs ..... "

In their minds however, these phrases were euphemisms for the pseudo "cause of action". They knew that they understood one thing while intending and knowing that I understand another.

Dixon didn't even use euphemisms; she just completely avoided any statement which would necessitate uttering or defining the things constituting the "cause of action" even in her affidavit which purports to support the strike out application.

Of particular note, Dixon's Affidavit in purported support of the Summons set out a table showing the claims "common" to the previous proceedings and the 2005, proceeding, even this ensured no mention of the matters and things comprising the "new" claim

 

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

 

 

No reference to the "Book of Pleadings"

As well as using euphemisms to avoid disclosing their true intent the lawyers also avoided all precipitative mention of the "book of pleadings" so as to conceal their intention to deceive the Court.

The entire basis of the planned misrepresentations was the misrepresentations made in relation to the "Book of Pleadings"

No one except Greg Garde and Sharon Burchell referred to the "Book of Pleadings"

Garde and Burchell's reference was misleading and deceptive and also concealed the true intent of the lawyers.

At paragraph 49 of their Outline of Submissions dated 8th November 2005 Garde and Burchell refer to the "Book of Pleadings" and say;;

"... the handwritten notes contained in that document traverse the same subject matter as what the plaintiffs are seeking to agitate in the current proceeding ..."; and

"The handwritten notes reflect what the first plaintiff has deposed to in his affidavit .... ". (my emphasis)

So in other words Garde and Burchell also use the euphemism "what the plaintiffs are seeking to agitate" and they specifically assert that the notes in the book of pleadings "reflect", or in other words are consistent with, what was in my affidavit.

On my understanding of the euphemism they specifically represented to me that the "book of pleadings" was consistent with my affidavit and the true "cause of action"

In the premise that their understanding of the euphemism was that pseudo "cause of action" then their paragraph 49 was deceptive.

On the evidence there was no other purpose for them introducing the "Book of Pleadings" other than to facilitate the misrepresentations in respect to that pseudo "cause of action". They certainly did not introduce it to demonstrate what they said to me at their paragraph 49 which was that the "Book of Pleadings" was consistent with the true "cause of action" and consistent with my affidavit.

Garde and Burchell's paragraph 49 was an essential part of what appears to be a very carefully orchestrated strategy. Garde and Burchell had to introduce the "Book of Pleadings" while concurrently not disclosing the intended use of the "Book of Pleadings". Had they disclosed what Dixon, Delany and Ahern intended to and subsequently did represent in relation to the "Book of Pleadings" then their strategy would have been at an end.

The Outline of Garde and Burchell did not disclose any reliance on the "Book of Pleadings"

 

 

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

 

 

Developing the "true lies" expressed in Delany and Ahern's Outline of Submissions

For the purpose of providing verisimilitude to the submissions which they planned to make the lawyers developed a number of "true lies" which they included in their Outlines of submissions and then submitted to the Court and which were then relied upon and expressed as fact in the written Reasons of Master Efthim.

The first "true lie"

• Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon of Maddocks, solicitors for the Council swore an affidavit dated 23rd September 2005 and which was sworn in purported support of the Councils strike-out summons. This document alleges "Plaintiffs seek to litigate issues which were the subject of earlier proceedings". [see paragraph "C" on page 2 of complete affidavit ]
  
  
  • This document then goes on to make a comparative tables of common allegations between the previous proceedings and the 2005 proceeding. [see paragraph 22 on page 5]
    
    
  • Of specific note here is that the comparative table is expressly restricted to common allegations. It does not even purport to set out or compare the different and new allegations and does not even purport to define the "cause of action" in either of the previous proceedings or the 2005 proceeding.
    

Then at paragraphs 17 of the First Outline of Submissions dated 9th November 2005 authored by Mr. J. Delany S.C. and Mr. G. J. Ahern. Paragraph 17 states, in relation to Tylden Rd,

"The comparative table set out at paragraph 22 of the first Dixon summary Judgment Affidavit shows quite clearly that the allegations of fact made in the prior Tylden Road proceeding are the same allegations sought to be relied upon by the plaintiffs in this proceeding to constitute the cause of action relied upon and the relief sought". [para 17 here]

On the face of it this is very "clever". Swear an essentially true affidavit for false reason. Leave the lies to the unsworn document.

Delany and Ahern's paragraph 22 makes essentially the identical misrepresentation in relation to Woodleigh Heights. [para 22 here]

The statements by Dixon, Delany and Ahern, at their paragraphs 17 and 22 are on the face of it false. The Dixon affidavit does not even purport to make a comparative table of anything except "common" allegations. The Dixon affidavit manifestly omitted to compare numerous paragraphs and does not set out the differences. Yet at their paragraphs 17 and 22 of the First Outline they assert that the allegations "to constitute the cause of action" are the same.

The second, third and fourth "true lies" - Here Dixon places the words at her paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 in my mouth so that she may subsequently demonstrate them to be false.

Dixon's affidavit dated 28th October 2005 purports to analyse my affidavit of 18th October 2005. At her paragraph 4 she says;

"Based on my review of the Thompson Affidavit I understand Thompson to be saying that:

4.1 It was his review of the documents in the black folder (provided to him in June 1991) in August 2000 that caused him to issue the current proceeding; and

4.2 The first time that the complete version of the plans was made available to him was when they were supplied to him in the black folder."

Now Dixon must have known that her first purported understanding at 4.1 was false. Just three paragraphs earlier, at her paragraph 3.6 she had said "He came to a number of conclusions in relation to Tylden Road as a result of "perusing the documents in the black folder.... and reviewing the documents tendered in the Magistrates Court and the evidence given by Wilson in that Court.....".

She also must have known that her second purported understanding was false. It is simply not possible for a reasonable person to reach such an "understanding" from my affidavit. However the evidence indicates that Ms Dixon's "understanding"(s), true or not, were essential to the strategy.

Dixon's affidavit paragraphs 3.6 to 4 may be viewed here. Notice that at paragraph 3.6 and 3.7 she purports to make her conclusions from paragraphs 53(f) and 53(h) of my affidavit and sets out her "understanding" at her paragraph 4. At her paragraph 3.6 she says that I came to a number of conclusions and then at her paragraph 3.7 she says "Upon reaching those conclusions it became apparent" to me "for the first time .... that the Council had acted maliciously ........ that Wilsons evidence given in the Magistrates Court had the effect of concealing the Council's true conduct ..... "

Now of significance is that Dixon omitted to transcribe the "conclusions" which she knows that I reached. These conclusions are set out at subparagraphs (53)(f)i) to (53)(f)(iii) of my affidavit, they are in subparagraphs of the very paragraph 53(f) that she referred to. These conclusions were;

1. "..... the Notice of Requirement ... ... had been falsely dated ...."
2. "... the plan of subdivision considered by the Council .. ... .. had been abandoned .... "
3. "That the Notice of Requirement had in fact been fabricated ...... "

Now, on the face of it these conclusions set out in my affidavit [ see paragraph 53)f) here] relate to the true "cause of action" which included that the Notice of Requirement related to the 18-lot plan considered by the Council on 20th February 1980 had never been served. The certainty is that these conclusions do not and cannot relate to that pseudo "cause of action"

We know however that Dixon, Delany and Ahern are developing misrepresentations related to that pseudo "cause of action"

At paragraph 36 of their First Outline Delany and Ahern develop and embellish Dixon's "understanding" at her paragraph 4.1 and they say ".... in respect of the Tylden Rd land the 'critical document' from the black folder which led Mr. Thompson to reach the conclusions which are said by him to underpin the 'fresh allegations' he now wishes to advance ..... was the copy of the complete version of the plans. .... " [para 36 here]

So at their paragraph 36 Dixon, Delany and Ahern

• use the euphemism" "fresh allegations"
• introduce the notion of "critical document"; and
• identify that "critical document" as being the "complete version" of the plans
• they assert that in my affidavit I say that this "critical document" underpins the "fresh allegations".

These are, respectively, the second, third and fourth "true lies" which are being developed by them for the purpose of supporting their overt misrepresentations in relation to that pseudo "cause of action"

We know that there is no document capable of existing which underpins the "fresh allegations" as understood between Dixon, Delany and Ahern. It is also clear from my paragraph 53(f) that my affidavit refers to the things giving rise to the true "cause of action" and not that pseudo "cause of action" as understood by Dixon et al.

The fifth "true lie"

Ms Dixon then goes on to develop the fifth "true lie" herself before it is taken up and developed by Delany and Ahern.

After making her (false) assertion as to her "understanding" at her paragraph 4.2 she goes on at her extensive paragraphs 5 to 12.8 to demonstrate that I had possession of the "complete version" of the industrial plan prior to getting the "black folder" [Dixon complete affidavit here]

The purpose of this was to demonstrate that the words that she had placed in my mouth were false.

Delany and Ahern then pick up on Dixon's "true lie" at their paragraph 36 where they say;

"....... as the objective documentary material exhibited to the first Dixon summary judgment affidavit and the 3 November Edward Affidavit establishes; in fact: (a) a copy of the complete plans was provided to the Plaintiffs solicitors in the prior Tylden Rd proceeding in may 1989 ..... " (Note:- Delany and Ahern's reference to the "first Dixon summary judgment affidavit" should be a reference to Dixon's second affidavit dated 28th October 2005)

Delany and Ahern's paragraph 36 also relies upon an affidavit sworn by Steven Mark Edward on 3rd November 2005 wherein Edward deposes that he undertook inspection of my discovered documents and in my possession was a copy of the complete version of the plans for the industrial allotments.

The fifth "true lie" is that Dixon, Delany and Ahern assert and establish that contrary to the words which Dixon put into my mouth at her paragraph 4.2 I was in fact provided with the "critical document" being the "complete plans" prior to getting the "black folder". The lie being that I never even implied that I did not previously have a copy of the "complete plan"

Delany and Ahern then develop these "true lies" further when:

• at their paragraph 52 they say "..... Taking Mr. Thompson's affidavit at face value whatever 'fraudulent concealment' or fraud is said to have occurred; the documents now relied upon to seek to establish the cause of action ..... have been in the possession of Mr. Thompson since 1991... "
  
  
• at their paragraph 53 they purport to set out representative representations of my affidavit but deceitfully only refer to the "black book"
  
  
• at their paragraph 54 they say "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." (my emphasis)

These paragraphs are overtly false and intended to deceive.

• The words "No other documents from the black folder are merntioned by Mr. Thompson as assisting him ..... " are deceptive, certainly no other documents from that folder are mentioned but numerous documents not from the black folder are mentioned. [see my affidavit paragraph 53)c)i)]
• At my paragraph 53)b) I clearly refer to "two versions of the plans for the industrial allotments ... namely complete versions and clipped versions" from the "black folder"
• At my paragraph 53)c) I clearly refer to "copies of the residential series ...... and these plans had also been clipped" from the "black folder"
• my paragraph 53)c)i) goes on to mention a number of documents not from the "black folder"
• the words "the allegations" in their paragraph 54 is a euphemism for that pseudo "cause of action" and no document capable of existing can "underpin" that pseudo "cause of action".

Delany and Ahern then consolidate these "true lies" when at their paragraph 55 they say;

"The complete version of the plans for the industrial allotments is considered by Mr Thompson to be the 'critical piece of the puzzle' which enabled Mr. Thompson to comprehend fully the events which he now alleges took place twenty five years ago in 1980."

So step by step Delany and Ahern evolve or morph Dixon's "understanding" so that it became the "true lie" asserted by them to be something I said or believe, at their paragraphs 54 and 55 they say;

• That I consider the plan for the industrial allotments to be the "critical piece of the puzzle which enabled" me to "comprehend fully the events ..... " (Dixons "understanding" has been transformed into my express assertion or state of mind)

In the circumstances and on the evidence I think it reasonable to conclude that this is a "damn lie". They used euphemisms to conceal what they were asserting and the simple fact is, as I have said, there is no document capable of being the "critical piece of the puzzle which enabled" me, or them or anyone at all, to "comprehend fully" that pseudo "cause of action"

Delany and Ahern then rely on their "damn lie" to say at their paragraph 64 ".... after the black folder containing the 'critical document' was handed to Mr. Thompson ..... there could not be and was no intentional concealment thereafter of any relevant material on the part of the Council" and at their paragraph 66 they say " ..... Council's conduct in voluntarily providing to Mr. Thompson the black folder containing "the critical piece of the puzzle" is not conduct evidencing a consciousness of wrongdoing or involving dishonesty or moral turpitude ....... "

Delaney and Ahern then compound their "true lies" at their paragraphs 69 and 70 so that they become "true outright fabrications". In these paragraphs they say that I fail to mention certain facts and they then go on to say;

• "the critical piece of the puzzle which led Mr. Thompson, according to him, to the conclusions ...... is said to be the copy .... of the complete version of the plans... " and "The picture Mr. Thompson seeks to paint in his ... affidavit is that the first time the .... plans were available to him was when they were supplied to him in the black folder ......... That is not so"

Delany and Ahern then build upon their "true outright fabrication" when at their paragraph 71 they say;

• "What Mr. Thompson fails to disclose .... is that (a) the complete version of such plans were discovered .. ... (e) Mr. Edward undertook inspection of documents ...... those documents included a complete copy of the 'complete' versions of the plans ..... "

So the evidence indicates that Dixon's "understanding" has been, carefully, purposefully and deceitfully transformed into my failure to disclose that I had this "critical document" was a discovered document. This is quite a transformation.

The purpose of this entire strategy of "true lies" was so as to enable Delany and Ahern to develop the "true outright fabrication" that the complete plan was "the critical piece of the puzzle" that openly disclosed that pseudo "cause of action" and it had been openly disclosed therefore there can be no concealment.

The entire strategy was predicated on the intial true lie of that pseudo "cause of action" and that pseudo "cause of action" further depended upon omission of reference to or consideraton of section 97 of the Transfer of Land Act.

Delany and Ahern continue to develop this lie but I have said enough. Master Efthim subsequently relied upon these "true outright fabrications", as intended by Dixon, Delany and Ahern they became true in Master Efthim's mind. He specifically transcribed and relied on these "true lies" in his Reasons.

The fact is of course that no document or group of documents existing or capable of existing can disclose the pseudo "cause of action" so all of this deceit was predicated on even baser deceit, that the figment of their fabrication, the pseudo "cause of action" can be understood from or disclosed by the "critical document".

This is a case study in clever deceit, with contemptuous disdain Dixon Delany and Ahern played the court of Master Efthim for a fool.

Master Efthim swallowed the true lies hook line and sinker.

Master Efthim's Reasons;

At paragraph 51 "The plaintiffs submit .. ... ... The critical document from the black folder which led Mr. Thompson to reach his conclusion was the copy of the complete plans......"

At paragraph 53 "It is clear from Mr. Thompson's first affidavit that 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..... I note that Michelle Elizabeth Dixon ... has sworn ..... the complete plans were discovered by the First Defendant........" (my emphasis)

 

 

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

On day one of the hearing Delany introduces the "true lies", gives clue and omits reference to section 97.

At the hearing Delany led off, he made submissions in accord with the "true lies" but continued to use euphemisms as had been done in his outline. For example see circled text from the transcript here, here and here.

However Delany began to give a clue as to where he was heading but said nothing of substance in relation to these clues;

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

Garde introduced the "Book of Pleadings" but said nothing, zero, zip, zilch.

Garde followed Delany, he also said nothing of consequence however he did introduce the "Book of Pleadings" but said nothing of substance in relation to it.

Garde introduced the "Book of Pleadings" on page 1 of the transcript of the second day [at first circled text], he then simply and briefly described a very little of what was in it, he made no comment, no allegations, no comparisons with anything at all and certainly said nothing of relevance to the strike out proceeding he was purportedly pursuing.

The only things of note that he did say are found at the second and third circled texts. In both instances he says to the effect that I had "comprehensive knowledge" about Tylden Rd. But he does not say of what in particular or of what relevance his submissions are.

On the submission of Garde there was simply no point to the "Book of Pleadings". His submission was essentially in accord with paragraph 49 of his and Burchell's First Outline as referred to above.

There was nothing to even intimate the submission which Delany proposed to make.

This was the Council and Water Authorities strike out application yet both Delany and Garde had completed their submissions without making a substantive submission.

They were astonishingly reticent to put their case.

 

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

My barrister, Mr. John Middleton S.C. carelessly and negligently misrepresented the law, me and my case

At page 35 of the transcript of 15th November 2005 Mr. Middleton said:

"Mr. Buchanan .... avoid the operation of s.9 ..... one simple way of doing it, lawyer telling you how to avoid it."

to which Master Efthim said "Two Allotments"

and Middleton said, "And do lots of them" [see circled and underlined text]

At page 38 of the transcript Mr. Middleton said:

".... this is the first time that it's been alleged that the initial sealing of the plan of subdivision was unlawful or illegal... "; and

"... ..a step which was never thought of .. .. that the subdivision itself would be unlawful."; and

"What was proceeded with to get around s.9 of the Sale of Land Act ... .. were a series of two lot subdivisions .. .. " [see circled text 1, 2 and 5 respectively]

At page 44 and 45 of the transcript Mr. Middleton went into great detail about how the "unlawful" plans were "contrived" to avoid s.9 of the Sale of Land Act. Before setting out these things for the Master, Mr. Middleton prefaced them with:

"...... we'll see what did happen, not to Mr. Thompson's knowledge however. It took a little while for this to sort of sink in......" (my emphasis) [transcript here]

At page 70:

"we say the fact that we're relying upon, namely the unlawful sealing initially, is a new fact which gives rise to its own cause of action ......" [transcript here]

At page 71

"....... we did not know that the subdivision was originally flawed and unlawful and we found that out in August 2000." [transcript here]

See also circled texts here.

Each and every one of these (mis)representations by Middleton was in the face of the law, the facts before him and my specific written instructions. They were also in the face of his own Outline of Submissions which summarised the true "causes of action". [full detail on Middleton page]

 

 

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

In reply to Middleton, under instruction from Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon of Maddocks Mr. J. Delany S.C. squarely misrepresented, the law, my affidavit, the "Book of Pleadings" and just about everything else to Master Efthim and omitted reference to section 97.

At pages 87 to 92 of the Transcript of 15th November 2005 Mr. Delany misrepresented the content of the document entitled "Book of Pleadings"

At these pages Mr. Delany overtly represents that the "Book of Pleadings" discloses that I was aware that 2-lot plans of subdivision facilitate avoidance of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act 1962 and that this was one and the same as the "cause of action" set out in the 2005 Amended Statement of Claim and that I claimed to have discovered this in 2000. [refer particularly to several circled texts]

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 read from page 5 of the "Book of PLeadings" and 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 ...."

Delany omitted all reference to section 97.

By these representations and omissions Delany squarely misrepresented;

• what constituted the "cause of action" in relation to Tylden Rd.
• the law
• my affidavt
• the "Book of Pleadings"

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]

 

 

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

The "Book of Pleadings" on Buchanan's futile attempt to avoid section 9.

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.
  
  
• 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. This was a specific reference to the underlined text on the copy of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. [complete "Book of Pleadings" here]

It can't get much simpler, the "Book of Pleadings" includes copies of the legislation with the critical provision underlined. It then says that Buchanan "contrived" 2-lot plans (for the purpose of avoiding section 9). It then expressly states that while Buchanan thought he had found a loophole he had in fact broken the law and breached section 9.

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 Buchanan's 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 simpler. It was set out in almost childish simplicity that 2-lot plans do not and cannot facilitate avoidance of section 9.

The "Book of Pleadings" does not say that the "contrived" plans were "contrived" to also avoid section 97 of the Transfer of Land Act. --

 

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

Were Delany's misrepresentations deliberate or as a consequence of unimaginable neglect?

It is unimaginable that none of either Dixon, Delany, Ahern, Edward, Garde and Burchell read section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. It was photocopied into the very pages of the "Book of Pleadings" that they specifically quoted from and referred Master Efthim to.

It is also unimaginable that not one of them understood section 9.

In the event that at least one of them understood the law then it is my opinion that there is no alternative other than to believe that the lawyers intended to deceive.

In the event that not one of the lawyers bothered to read or understand the law then there remains an intention to deceive together with culpable neglect.

Based on the evidence, the probability is that not only were Delany's misrepresentations deliberate they were the culmination of a carefully planned strategy to deceive and that is the opinion I have concluded.

Had Dixon, Delany and Ahern held a belief, mistaken or otherwise, as to the correctness of their planned submissions they would have made those submissions up front, on page 1 of the transcript of the first day. In addition they would have put them up front in their First Outline of Submissions and they would not have omitted section 97.

• Clearly the strike-out application depended upon identifying the "causes of action" in respect to each of Tylden Rd and Woodleigh Heights and demonstrating that they were known, disclosed etc. As detailed above none of the lawyers identified the "causes of action" and Delany and Ahern and Garde and Burchell, under instruction from their respective solicitors, used euphemisms rather than do so.
  
  
• The submissions in relation to Tylden Rd depended upon the misrepresentations made in relation to the law and the "Book of Pleadings"
  
  
• Steven Mark Edward had without my knowledge or consent wrongly copied this privileged document at my residence in 1999.
  
  
• Steven Mark Edward swore an affidavit that he had copied "discovered" documents. The "Book of Pleadings" never was a "discovered document"
  
  
• Steven Mark Edward Exhibited some 1795 pages of documents in six loose leaf folders. Each and every one of these documents was a proper court document relating to the two previous proceedings except for the "Book of Pleadings" which was secreted at pages 285 to 419 of those 1795 pages.
  
  
• The "Book of Pleadings", although secreted within 1795 pages, was exhibited by Mr. Steven Mark Edward for the purpose of the intended submissions.
  
  
• Steven Mark Edward swore a number of affidavits where he referred to exhibited documents. None of these affidavits referred to the "Book of Pleadings" or identified any "cause of action"
  
  
• Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon swore a number of affidavits, none of these identified any "cause of action" or mentioned or alluded to the "Book of Pleadings"
  
  
• Mr. J. Delany S.C. and Mr. G. J. Ahern authored an Outline of Submissions which very carefully did not include an inkling of their proposed submission.
  
  
• Mr. Greg Garde Q.C. and Ms. Sharon Burchell authored an Outline of Submissions which as detailed below was an abject nonsense and did not allude to the proposed submissions however the Outline did deceptively introduce the "Book of Pleadings"
  
  
• Each of Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon, Mr. J. Delany S.C. Mr. G.J. Ahern, Steven Mark Edward, Mr. Greg Garde Q.C. and Ms. Sharon Burchell must have been aware of the planned submissions.
  
  
• At least one of the bevy of lawyers must have read and understood section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and thereby understood that the proposed submission was false and misleading.
  
  
• The true and correct interpretation of section 9 was set out in the "Book of Pleadings" itself with relevant text underlined and pointed to,
  
  
• Mr. Greg Garde and Mr. J. Delany employed what may well be called a tag team effort so as to make their intended final submissions contingent upon what may have been submitted by Mr. Middleton. The tag team operated as follows;
  
  
  • Mr. Delany led off on day one. He spent the better part of the day saying nothing, he alluded to the "cause of action" as being avoidance of section 9 by means of 2-lot plans of subdivision yet he did not put an argument and did not refer to the "Book of Pleadings"
    
    
  • Mr. Greg Garde then made his submissions; he introduced the "Book of Pleadings" and read from it but, in line with the deceptive introduction in his Outline, he did not identify any "cause of action" and said nothing of substance at all in relation to the "Book of Pleadings".
    
    
  • My Q.C. Mr. John Middleton then made his submissions. Astonishingly John Middleton did not identify the "cause of action" and carelessly represented that 2-lot plans do facilitate avoidance of section 9.
    
    
  • In purported reply to Middleton, at page 88 of the transcript of the second day, Delany, for the first time, made his misrepresentations in relation to the "causes of action" and the "Book of Pleadings"
    
    
• 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 ...." was the point where the entire strategy culminated. This was plainly planned before the summonses were issued. The law, the "Book of Pleadings" and the Amended Statement of Claim all expressly set out that this representation was false

In other words the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority very carefully concealed the fact that their strike-out application depended upon;

• overt (mis)representations as to what constituted the "causes of action"
• overt (mis)representations in relation to the content of the "Book of Pleadings" and
• overt (mis)representations in respect to section 9 of the Sale of Land Act.
• overt (mis)representations as to my affidavit.
• overt (mis)representation by omission of reference to section 97.

As I have set out above the various affidavits and outlines of submissions by these lawyers were contrived in such a manner as to conceal their planned (mis)representations and to lead me and my lawyers to believe that that their case depended upon a comparison of the previous proceedings with the 2005 proceeding and an assertion by them that the true "causes of action" had been or could have been previously alleged.

I do not believe that Delany held a belief as to his explanation of section 9 which he made at page 40 of the transcript of the first day. It is more probable that he overtly represented it so as not to preclude his intended (mis)representations in relation to it. Delany had read section 9, he is a Senior Counsel, and he understood it.

Essential to the strategy was that the lawyers not define the "causes of action"

As detailed above the lawyers did not identify or refer to the "causes of action" except by using euphemisms. Had they defined the true causes of action in any one of their numerous affidavits and Outlines then that would have absolutely precluded the strategy.

Had they defined the cause of action as they intended to misrepresent it then they would have been exposed in one second and again their strategy would have been precluded.

The strategy depended upon not defining the "causes of action" in any one of their documents or at all.

So we have this astounding spectacle. These lawyers, Dixon, Delany, Ahern, Edward, Garde and Burchell all acting in relation to a strike out proceeding which depends upon defining the matters and things constituting the "causes of action" so that they can demonstrate that the "cause of action" as defined offends one or more of the Limitation of Actions Act, res-judicata and/or Anshun and/or is in fact precluded by Terms of Settlement yet not one of them alluded to let alone defined that cause of action.

If any one of the lawyers had defined the cause of action as being that represented by Delany in his "last representation", or anything else for that matter, then the game would have been over. For the success of the strategy the lawyers had to conceal what they knew to be the culmination of the strategy and they collectively and individually did conceal what they knew.

Was the strategy of the lawyers a bald-faced money making exercise?

Established law requires a case to be made out up front. These lawyers did not make out their case; they overtly concealed it until the last 5 minutes of the second day of hearing. Had they set out it in their numerous affidavits and outlines of submission it would have been bowled over by me in one second.

By concealing their intended (mis)representations the lawyers have (for the moment) earned themselves almost half a million dollars. Had they honestly believed that they had a great case and had set out that case before filing their strike-out summonses or early in the proceeding they may have only earned a couple of hundred dollars or at best a couple of thousand.

A lawyers stock in trade is conflict, not resolution.

 

 

**********END OF SECTION**********

.

The affidavit of Michelle Elizabeth Dixon dated 23rd September 2005

Ms. Michelle Elizabeth Dixon of Maddocks swore this affidavit which purports to make tables of allegations common to the previous proceedings and the current 2005 proceeding.

In relation to Tylden Rd, Dixon's affidavit says that paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim in the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding alleged that a Notice of Requirement was served on or about 20th February 1980 but because the comparative table restrains itself to common allegations it omits to compare this with the paragraph T5 of the 2005 proceeding which alleges the direct opposite. [see paragraph 7 here and paragraph T5 here and table item (ii) and (iv) at page 6 of Dixon's affidavit] [compare Dixon's assertion with the Reasons of Justice Osborn where Osborn omits reference to paragraph 7 and Osborn asserts that the Amended Statement of Claim specifically alleges that no Notice of Requirement was served] See also above at the "true lies" heading.

In relation to Woodleigh Heights, Dixon's affidavit omits to compare the paragraphs relevant to the "cause of action" of either the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding or the 2005 proceeding. The "cause of action" of the 1995 proceeding is specifically found at paragraphs 13 and 14 of that proceeding where it is specifically alleged that the 1978 water supply and water mains were present and that I had an entitlement to that water supply whereas paragraph W10 of the 2005 specifically alleges that the 1978 water supply was not present. [see 4th star]

In other words Dixon's affidavit was carefully contrived to restrict itself to common elements and therefore it completely omitted the paragraphs pertinent to comparison of the true "causes of action".

The affidavit of Michelle Elizabeth Dixon dated 28th October 2005

Ms Dixon swore this affidavit in reply to my affidavit of 18th October 2005 and purports to factually analyse my affidavit. Of relevance, she purports to state what is in paragraphs 53(a), (b), (c) and (f) of my affidavit and then goes on to purport to state my conclusion at paragraph 53(h) however Dixon omits what is in 31 paragraphs and subparagraphs. [details]

These omitted paragraphs, surprise, surprise, contain the details of the false evidence in the Magistrates Court and what I discovered in August 2000.

The "true lies" detailed above were derived from this affidavit and these "true lies" were then used to form the basis of the misrepresentations made to Master Efthim and Justice Osborn. [see at top of this page for complete details]

 

 

********

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.

At the time of writing his Reasons and making his Orders, Justice Osborn had adequate of the above set out before him. Faced with exposing these "damn lies", Justice Osborn chose to ignore, deny, conceal and or make wrong my specific allegations and thereby perpetuate the fraud.

Garde and Edward made application to the Court of Appeal for indemnity costs on the grounds that my allegations regarding their conduct were unfounded. Adequate evidence of the "damn lies" was before Justices Neave and Mandie who declined to adjudicate on that question, and instead rewarded Garde and Edward with indemnity costs on their own grounds.

On the face of it, the Supreme Court of Victoria not only tolerates lying lawyers, it engenders and positively rewards them.

**********

Top of Page ------ Menu Page

 

 

 

 

Courts on Trial --- This website is authored and maintained by Glenn Alexander Thompson