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

 

Justice Osborn's Reasons for Judgment are so comprehensively and cohesively wrong
that I do not believe it possible that they were concluded by either judicial reason or accident.

You be the judge.

Justice Osborn and the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding

Justice Osborn was fully aware that the lawyers had misrepresented the facts and the law to Master Efhim. Osborn could not base his Reasons on the misrepresentations of the lawyers so he introduced his own reasons and fabricated them in such a manner as to ignore, deny, conceal and or make wrong the fact known to him, that the lawyers had misled the court. This page described Osborn's fabrications in relation to the previous 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding.

Layman's Synopsis

  • In 1988, Justice Kaye of the Supreme Court found that the Council had no right to hold or call upon the bank guarantees I'd given to guarantee that Buchanan would construct roads and services on the Tylden Rd subdivision.  This was based on the "fact" that the Notice of Requirement did not provide for the holding of bank guarantees.
  • Based on Justice Kaye's findings, I issued proceedings in the County Court to recover the money I'd been wrongly forced to pay to the Council and the Water Authority.
  • In that proceeding, I claimed that the Council did serve a Notice of Requirement requiring construction of roads but did not serve a Notice of Requirement requiring lodgement of bank guarantees.
  • Later I discovered that no such Notice of Requirement had been served at all. The Council had resolved to issue a Notice of Requirement when it considered the Tylden Rd plans of subdivision but never followed through on this resolution. This fact had been concealed from me and from the courts, and this fact formed the basis of the 2005 proceeding in respect to Tylden Rd.

  • Justice Osborn's Reasons for Judgment addressed the Statement of Claim in the 1988 proceeding and, by selecting some paragraphs and ignoring others he falsely represented that the 1988 proceeding alleged that no Notice of Requirement had been served. The truth was the opposite because the 1988 proceeding squarely alleged that a Notice of Requirement had been served.

  • Justice Osborn then said that my 2005 proceeding could not go ahead because the same thing had been said before.

For a full understanding of the things leading to the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding please read the Tylden Rd story.

Details

The "cause of action" in the 2005 proceeding was that the Council had sealed the plans of cluster subdivision in full knowledge that the services were not present and there was no lawful means of compelling provision of those services. This "cause of action" arose as a consequence of the fact that the Council omitted to serve the Notice of Requirement which it had resolved to serve in relation to the 18-lot plan for the Tylden Rd subdivision.

Because the services were not present and there was no lawful means of compelling provision of those services, this meant that the Council had knowingly assisted the developer to avoid the "effect" of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act.

The Council and Water Authority had concealed the fact that the Notice of Requirement had not been served by giving false evidence and falsified documents before the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court and by discovering (making available) falsified documents and making false admissions in the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding [details here]

In August 2000, I discovered what the Council had been hiding and issued the 2005 proceeding. The lawyers for the Council and Water made application to have my proceeding struck out before trial. The hearing of that application came on before Master Efthim of the Supreme Court. The lawyers deceived Master Efthim and Master Efthim made judgment squarely based upon that deception.

The specific and overt deception was that Master Efthim was led to believe that, in 1991, at the time of compiling to the "Book of Pleadings" I was aware of the "cause of action" and in particular that I was aware of the scheme to avoid s.9 of the Sale of Land Act. [details]

I appealed and the hearing came on before Justice Osborn. The lawyers repeated their misrepresentations before Justice Osborn. In reply I made substantial written submission detailing both the true "causes of action" and the fact that Master Efthim had been misled. [my written submissions part 1 here and part 2 here] (these are large files)

With my submissions read into the record the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority were fixed with knowledge that they had misled Master Efthim. Justice Osborn was also aware that Master Efthim had been misled and that the submissions by the lawyers were completely fallacious.

Fixed with this knowledge Justice Osborn determined to find against me and to fabricate reasons for that purpose. He then went on to fabricate Reasons which falsely assert that the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding alleged that no lawful Notice of Requirement had been served.

1988 Tylden Rd proceeding Recap

The Council had given evidence in the Magistrates Court and Supreme Courts that on or about 20th February 1980 it had served a Notice of Requirement in relation to the 18-lot plan. My assertion in those proceedings was that the Notice of Requirement was a Notice requiring construction of roads and not a Notice enabling the holding or calling up of bank guarantees. Justice Kay found exactly as asserted by me. [details]

The 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding was initiated after the Judgment of Justice Kaye and it specifically alleged at its paragraphs 7 and 20 exactly as found by Justice Kaye. Paragraph 7 specifically alleged that on 20th February 1980 the Council served a Notice of Requirement and paragraph 20 specifically alleged that the Council was not entitled to hold or call upon my bank guarantees because there was no or no lawful requirement for that purpose. The Council gave evidence to the effect of paragraph 7 and admitted to paragraph 7 on eight occasions. [details]

Justice Osborn's Reasons for Judgment

For the purpose of finding against me and ignoring. denying, concealing and/or making wrong the facts of the fraud and the fact that Master Efthim was misled Justice Osborn fabricated his reasons as follows.

Justice Osborn purports to make findings in relation to the Amended Statement of Claim in the 1988 County Court proceeding. The first thing to notice is that he did transcribe paragraph 20 [at red star] of the Amended Statement of Claim into his Reasons and did not transcribe the more relevant paragraph 7 [at star]. Then purporting to rely upon paragraph 20 alone, as transcribed by him, at his paragraph 58 he says:

"....the amended statement of claim specifically alleged that the plans were not lawfully sealed and lawful notices of requirment were not issued...." (my emphasis)

The fact however is that paragraph 20 of the 1988 Amended Statement of Claim does not imply such a thing much less specifically allege it. This statement by Justice Osborn is not true and has no basis in fact at all. In addition, at his paragraph104, he says:

".....the amended statement of claim specifically alleged .... ... lawful notices of requirement were not issued" (my emphasis)

Again this statement is simply not true, paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim and the Amended Statement of Claim clearly allege that a Notice of Requirement was served and elsewhere Justice Osborn's reasons say exactly that. (near the first star on right of page) [also compare this with the affidavit of Ms Michelle Elizabeth Dixon of Maddocks where she specifically swears that paragraph 7 of the Amended Statement of Claim in the 1988 proceeding alleged that a Notice of Requirement was served and that it was a requirement to construct roads]

At his paragraphs 60 Justice Osborn then ties his misstatements to the present 2005 Amended Statement of Claim where he says

'Each of these allegations form part of the subject matters which the plaintiffs now wish to revive. The critical allegation now relied upon is that the Council did not serve proper "requirements"' (my emphasis)

This statement by Justice Osborn is misleading. It is manifest from the foregoing and paragraph 7 that the 1988 Amended Statement of Claim specifically alleges that a Notice of Requirement requiring construction of roads etc was served. This is the complete polar opposite of what is alleged at paragraph T5 (the second star) of the 2005 Amended Statement of Claim that the Council omitted to serve the Notice of Requirement which it had resolved to serve on 20th February 1980 (the first star). The 2005 Amended Statement of Claim goes on to allege that the Council fabricated other purported notices of Requirement. The 2005 Amended Statement of Claim alleges that the council did not serve proper requirements'. The 1988 Amended Statement of Claim does not.

From the above it is clear that the facts now known (and admitted by the Council) were concealed by perjury in the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court and further concealed by the eight instances of false admissions by the Council and Water Authority in the 1988 proceeding.

Justice Osborn misstated the gravamen / "cause of action" in the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding by omitting paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim. Of note and relevance he also misstated the gravamen / "cause of action in the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding by, amongst other things, overtly misrepresenting the facts and omitting a paragraph from that Statement of Claim.

Notably Michelle Elizabeth Dixon of Maddocks swore in her affidavit of 23rd September 2005 that paragraph 7 of the Statements of Claim in the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding alleged that the Notice of Requirement had been served and that it was a requirement to construct roads. Of further note is the fact that she did not even mention paragraph 20 of that proceeding at all. Justice Osborn's Reasons even fly in the face of Dixon's affidavit. [see page 6 table items(ii) and (iv) complete affidavit here]

Justice Osborn's Reasons in relation to the gravamen of the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding are without any basis in fact or reason. They are however consistent with the remainder of his fabrications.

Justice Osborn's Reasons for Judgment [also available on austlii database]

**********

Top of Page ------ Menu Page

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I