Justices Neave and Mandie
2008 Court of Appeal
Layman's synopsis
|
Background
Master Efthim was misled by the lawyers. He was led into believing that unlawful plans gave rise to the "cause of action". Because Master Efthim correctly formed the view that the fact of the unlawful plans had not been concealed from me, he rewarded the lawyers by awarding indemnity costs against me. I was forced to pay for the fact that Master Efthim had been misled.
Justice Osborn, in full knowledge that Master Efthim had been misled, manufactured his Reasons for Judgment so as to make it appear that I knew about the "causes of action" and they had not been concealed from me. During the hearing before Justice Osborn, I provided evidence that Mr. Greg Garde had misled successive Courts and that Mr. Steven Edward was a liar in respect to his version of how he obtained the "Book of Pleadings". On the application of Mr. Garde and Mr. Edward, Justice Osborn awarded indemnity costs against me on the grounds that I knew about the "causes of action" and that I had vilified officers of the Court.
I filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal and, at a directions hearing before Master Lansdowne, I submitted that the facts and "causes of action" should be agreed upon so as to minimise both argument and the volume of documents to be prepared. The lawyers for the Council and Water Authority argued that they could not agree with me as to the facts and "causes of action" [see Lying lawyers]. Master Lansdowne refused this request to settle such a fundamental point as the facts and "causes of action". She let them off the hook and a further chance at truth was lost.
The Council and Water Authority applied to the Court to have me file money for security for costs of the appeal. At that hearing I made submissions as to the Reasons of Justice Osborn and the "Authenticated Orders" and submitted that I had a right to the appeal which did not depend upon my ability to pay. Justice Buchanan said to the effect “there is nothing in your allegations about the Authenticated Orders”, and went on to order that I file $60,000 for my appeal to proceed".
My appeal was not an appeal on some esoteric point if law, it was an appeal which went to the heart of the administration of Justice and particularly the conduct of Osborn. The judges of the Court of Appeal were going to have to make judgment on the conduct of one of their "brother" judges or alternatively sidestep the true issue and find against me on some other point.
As a consequence of the foregoing, I formed the opinion that the Court of Appeal was prejudiced and I would not receive a fair hearing unless I could find a barrister with the courage to put the facts. I could not find such a barrister so I abandoned the appeal rather than have the Court of Appeal further reward lawyers' lies and misrepresentations.
Application for indemnity costs before Justices Neave and Mandie
After I had abandoned my appeal from the Orders of Justice Osborn, Mr. Garde and Mr. Edward came in for another bite. They applied to the Court of Appeal to have indemnity costs awarded against me on the grounds that my allegations were "unfounded". In other words, Garde and Edward said that the things now substantially set out on this website were "unfounded".
Mr. Steven Mark Edward prepared an affidavit and Mr. Greg Garde prepared an "Outline of Submissions". In response I prepared a combined affidavit/submission which set out in substantial detail adequate that, if the document and exhibits were properly assessed, the Court of Appeal could not find my allegations "unfounded".
The hearing came on before Justices Neave and Mandie of the Court of Appeal. They had read the submissions and affidavits before the hearing. At the start of the hearing Justice Mandie said to Mr. Greg Garde, words to the effect, "I would have thought you could have prepared this application on the grounds that the appeal was hopeless". The Court's mind was apparent and I knew I was done for at that point.
Justices Neave and Mandie later handed down their written reasons. Justice Mandie wrote them and Justice Neave concurred. They awarded indemnity costs against me, not on the grounds relied upon my Garde and Edward, but on the grounds put forward by Justice Mandie: that the appeal was hopeless.
Justices Neave and Mandie based their assertion that my appeal was hopeless on the fabricated Reasons of Justice Osborn. The specific points they relied upon were:
"As the judgment appealed from demonstrates, the claims made by the appellants in the proceeding were the subject of full and complete releases contained in terms of settlement of earlier proceedings. In addition, the claims were statute barred and, as the judge found, the appellants were aware of all of the relevant facts within the limitations periods."; AND
"As I have said, having abandoned the appeal, the appellants cannot seek to contradict the judicial determinations that led to the summary judgment in the Trial Division."
I say that the evidence is that Justices Neave and Mandie employed astonishing mental acrobatics to arrive at these conclusions and to avoid/decline to adjudicate on whether or not my allegations were unfounded as alleged by Mr. Garde and Mr. Edward.
The first point I make is that I was not even purporting to seek to contradict the so-called judicial determination;
- First and foremost I was seeking to defend the claim brought by Garde and Edward that my allegations were "unfounded". Manifestly I was not seeking to contradict any judicial determination.
- The question as to whether or not an allegation is "unfounded" does not include the question as to whether or not the allegation is proven. It manifestly follows that a determination by Justices Neave and Mandie that my allegations were not "unfounded" would not include and could not include a "contradict[ion of] the judicial determinations that led to summary judgment". This is nonsense.
An allegation may also be wrong but not "unfounded". Therefore it is manifest that Justices Neave and Mandie could have adjudicated on the question as to whether or not my allegations were "unfounded" without contradicting the judicial determination and without finding them to be true. They declined to adjudicate on this question and denied me my right to have the allegation against me determined. Their reason for declining to do so is flawed.
Having declined to adjudicate on the specific issue that was before them, Justices Neave and Mandie relied upon the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Osborn to make the point that was raised by Justice Mandie, namely that the appeal was hopeless.
The assertion by Justices Neave and Mandie that my appeal was hopeless is specifically based upon Justice Osborn's purported "finding" that the claims in the proceeding were the subject of full and complete releases. This supposed finding by Justice Osborn relied specifically on an assertion by him that the gravamen of the 2005 proceeding was subject to the releases made in the 1995 Supreme Court proceeding and the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding. In relation to these things Justice Osborn specifically misrepresented the gravamen of the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding and specifically misrepresented the gravamen of the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding.
Sufficient evidence to demonstrate that my allegations were not "unfounded" was squarely before Justices Neave and Mandie. [Refer para 120 to 127 of my Affidavit/Submission (1995 Woodleigh Heights Gravamen) and para 179 to 197 ( Tylden Rd.)]
Consequently I say that the evidence squarely before Justices Neave and Mandie showed that the grounds of the application by Garde and Edward were false and "unfounded". Instead they elected to reward Garde and Edward on grounds raised by Justice Mandie in preference to adjudicating on whether or not my allegations were "unfounded".
It may be that Neave and Mandy did not adjudicate on the question before them so as to avoid finding that my allegations were not unfounded. Their refusal to adjudicate on the question included a refusal to adjudicate on the question of Justice Osborn's behaviour. Had they adjudicated on the question it may be that the behavior of Justice Osborn would have already been referred to a committee and there would be no need for this website. Why did they decline to adjudicate? Their reason for not adjudicating is unsound. You be the judge.
Notably, had they adjudicated on the question before them they may have found that my allegation that Osborn's Reasons were fabricated was not "unfounded". And without determining this question they relied on Osborn's Reasons to fine me. Hmmm...... Justice Supreme Court style! They handsomeoly rewarded Edward and Garde.
Justices Neave and Mandie did exactly as I anticipated the Court of Appeal could do if I proceeded with the appeal. They were on notice that their brother judge had misbehaved but sidestepped the questions as to their "brother" judge and their reasons for sidestepping are a patent nonsense but consistent with the conduct of the rest of the court in not addressing the issue of dishonest lawyers.
Justices Neave and Mandie did not find my allegations unfounded. I have no doubt that they would have if they could have, and in the strongest possible terms. They did not adjudicate on the specific grounds of the application but instead used reasons of their own making to reward the misrepresentations of the lawyers and punish me for speaking out. |
The Reasons for Judgment of Justices Neave and Mandie may be viewed here
The affidavit of Mr. Steven Mark Edward may be viewed here
The Outline of Submissions by Mr. Greg Garde may be viewed here
My Affidavit/Submission may be viewed here
The exhibits to my Affidavit/Submission may be viewed
Exhibit GlennAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34a 34b 34c 35
**********
Top of Page ------ Menu Page