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

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.

Random Wrongs

Make no mistake, Justice Osborn's Reasons for Judgment were concluded with high level reasoning and, to the uninformed reader, they appear to be comprehensive and cohesively correct. However, as set out on this website, this appearance is superficial only. The wrongs set out on this page were not randomly written by Justice Osborn. The Reasons were most deliberate indeed. I have randomly selected a few to be showcased in this page.

After reading Master Efthim's Reasons for Decision and hearing from the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority, Justice Osborn, like Master Efthim before him, appeared to have no idea as to the "causes of action" he was required to adjudicate upon. Like Master Efthim before him, he thought it was something to do with "unlawful plans of subdivision". After hearing from me, was fully informed that Master Efthim had been misled by the lawyers and he knew well what the true "causes of action" were.

The evidence on this website leads me to believe that Justice Osborn determined to find against me, firstly to ignore, deny, conceal and/or make wrong the fact that Master Efthim had been misled by the lawyers, and secondly to conform with his personal prejudice. However he couldn't find against me on the submissions of the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority so he manufactured his own Reasons. You be the judge.

The schemes

The scheme of the conspiracy by the Council and Water Authority in the case of Woodleigh Heights and for the purpose of ensuring the "proviso", was to:

• conceal the facts relating to the 1978 water supply consisting of the lake, tanks and reticulation system.
• falsely represent that the 1982 water supply was a lawful water supply provided pursuant to a lawful Water Supply Agreement.
• falsely represent that my Woodleigh Heights land did not have access to an approved reticulated water supply for the purpose of the Shire of Kyneton Planning Scheme/Policy.
• represent that, in the absence of a reticulated water supply, my land could not have building permits.
  
  

The scheme of the conspiracy by the Council and Water Authority in the case of Tylden Rd, was to:

• falsely represent that a lawful Notice of Requirement had been issued and served.

The "scheme" of Justice Osborn's Reasons for Judgment in the case of Woodleigh Heights and in the face of the facts and the law, appeared to be:

• deny the facts related to the 1978 water supply.
• hold the 1982 water supply and Water Supply Agreement to be lawful.
• hold that my land did not have access to any approved reticulated water supply.
• hold that the residential use of my land was dependant upon further planning permits.
  
  

The "scheme" of Justice Osborn's Reasons for Judgment in the case of Tylden Rd and in the face of the facts and the law, appeared to be:

• hold that the "cause of action" was known to me and pleaded at the time of the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding.

The "scheme" of Justice Osborn's Reasons in relation to Woodleigh Heights is essentially indistinguishable from the scheme of the conspiracy employed by the Council and Water Authority to implement the "proviso". In relation to Tylden Rd, he simply flew in the face of the facts before him.

While constructing his Reasons, Justice Osborn simply misrepresents or omits numerous facts and invents others. Each such misrepresentation cohesively fits with the "scheme" of his Reasons.

This page sets out a number of examples of these things.

Woodleigh Heights

Critical to the scheme of the conspiracy and the "scheme" of Justice Osborn's Reasons is an assertion, whether express or implied, that the unlawful "Water Supply Agreement", and the water provided pursuant to it, was lawful. It appeared that Justice Osborn went to great lengths to misrepresent the facts and to thereby ignore, deny, conceal and/or make wrong both the scheme of the conspiracy and the fact that the "Water Supply Agreement" was unlawful.

Justice Osborn's Reasons are riddled with reference to "potable" and "non-potable" water. His references to "potable" are references to the unlawful 1982 water supply and his references to "non-potable" water are references to the 1978 water supply which was approved by the Council as condition of the planning permit for the original subdivision of the Woodleigh Heights land.

Justice Osborn raised this red herring of "potable" versus "non-potable" himself, it was not raised by the lawyers and they were specifically precluded by law from raising these things.

The pre-requisite to the grant of building permits at Woodleigh Heights was that the land be serviced by a lawful "reticulated water supply", potable or not. The Council had approved the "non-potable" private "reticulated water supply" in 1978 and it did constitute a lawful "reticulated water supply" for the purpose building permits. The "potable" 1982 water supply was also a "reticulated water supply" however it was unlawful in every respect and therefore no-one was lawfully entitled to that supply and it could not constitute a "reticulated water supply" for the purpose of building permits.

When I understood Justice Osborn had no inkling as to the things constituting the "causes of action" after hearing from the lawyers, I began to explain them to him. His demeanour and position was transparently adverse to me. After I gave a short explanation that my case hinged upon the 1978 water supply being a condition of the initial planning permit, Justice Osborn said:

"it depends on construction of the planning permit as to whether that's right, but that's not the sort of question that would be resolved at this stage". (my emphasis)

He then referred to Greg Garde's submission of the previous day which related to the 1982 water supply and said:

"The 1982 supply is the type of supply contemplated by the planning permit, isn't it?" (my emphasis)

To this I simply replied, "No sir, it is not."

I then made my substantive submissions which included specific and extensive submissions that the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority, and particularly Greg Garde, had misled Master Efthim and other courts. My submission in relation to Garde was that he habitually misled courts by, amongst other things, representing the 1982 water supply and Water Supply Agreement to be lawful.

After this, Garde picked up on the lead provided by Justice Osborn and he began to make submissions on the 1978 water supply versus the 1982 water supply [here]. In the early stages of Garde's submission, Justice Osborn prompted him by asking if his submission made clear the distinction between "potable" versus "non-potable" [here]. Garde then made the distinction and also re-asserted his representation that the Water Supply Agreement was lawful when he said:

“There was under the provisions of the Act a legally valid water agreement in existence between the board and the development company and that under the water agreement, the development company owned and operated the water supply reticulation system within the cluster subdivision.” [bold text]

Once Major General Garde had finished, Justice Osborn adjourned the proceeding, however I asked to be heard and I said, "Your Honour, may I address one issue just raised by Mr Garde?  He raise the issue of potable water.  It's simply irrelevant.  The question was simply with regard to a reticulated water supply potable or not.  It has zero to do with potable or not."

In reply Justice Osborn said, "Well, I don't accept that, Mr Thompson". He also said, "That's precisely what Mr Garde put to me and I understand it.  In compliance with - the permit had nothing to do with potable water.  Having said that we'll adjourn sine die." (my emphasis) [here]

Justice Osborn then went on to formulate his Reasons in accord with what he had apparently predetermined. In relation to the planning permit and the "non-potable" 1978 water supply, he said that condition 8 of the permit did not have to be complied with and that the "non-potable" 1978 water supply was not an approved water supply [details here]. In relation to the "potable" 1982 water supply, he asserted many manifest wrongs each of which relies upon the implied assertion that the 1982 water supply and Water Supply Agreement were lawful. [some details here]

Then for the apparent purpose of providing verisimilitude to the "scheme" of his Reasons, he also completely misrepresented what I said.

• For example, at his paragraph 154 Justice Osborn says:

  "If it is accepted for present purposes, as the plaintiffs submit, that, a precondition to the grant of building permits on the Woodleigh Heights allotments, was that the allotments be serviced by an approved reticulated water supply (from the Water Board), such a requirement was not a stipulation of the original planning permit.... .... "

  I never made any such submission. Justice Osborn put words in my mouth for his own purposes. The words "(from the water board)" amount to a complete misrepresentations of the truth. The truth is set out in my submission to Justice Osborn [at the stars]. I clearly stated, in writing, that a building permit was dependant upon an approved reticulated water supply with no mention of the Water Board. I further said that it was the private water supply defined by condition 8 of the planning permit which was that approved water supply. The statement by Justice Osborn totally misrepresented what I ("the plaintiffs") submitted. Such misrepresentations were essential to the "scheme" of Justice Osborn's Reasons because his Reasons depend upon an implied assertion that the 1982 supply was lawful and approved and the express assertion that the 1978 supply was not approved and was irrelevant.

[My complete submissions to Justice Osborn are here and here and the full transcript for the first day is here (in word format) and the second day here.]

As to the second part of that assertion, "such a requirement was not a stipulation..... ", of course a water supply "from the Water Board" was not a "stipulation" of the original planning permit. Such a supply could not be lawfully provided at that time without the Governor in Council's approval and there was simply no water mains out there. In addition, my entire case was that the planning permit required the 1978 water supply, not the water supply (from the Water Board). I believe that Justice Osborn knew this full well, and that his writings were intended to mislead. This misrepresentation coordinates with his paragraph 148 wherein he misrepresents the gravamen of the 1995 Woodleigh Heights proceeding.

• As further example, at his paragraph 73 Justice Osborn says of the Planning Permit for the timeshare resort, approved in 1980:

"This was evidently approved by the Council subject to the augmentation of water supply". [here]

At his footnote 11, he attributes this assertion by him to my oral submission whereas no such oral submission was made by me. In relation to this I said " ..... it was resubdivided because they wished to build a timeshare resort there. At that point in time, on my understanding later, was that it was necessary to augment the supply that was out there initially. The supply that was provided by the Kyneton Water Board......." [see star]

Justice Osborn's version cannot be construed from what was said by me. The planning permit was issued in November 1980 and the application for water was not made until March 1981. In no way did I say or imply that the planning permit was contingent upon that supply. On the evidence before him, Justice Osborn must have known that the 1982 supply was not and could not be a condition of or prerequisite to the 1980 Planning Permit because it could not be either physically or lawfully provided by the Water Authority at that time.

Each and every paragraph of Justice Osborn's Reasons which contains a reference to either "potable" or "non-potable" is misleading. The so called "potable" water supply was unlawful in every respect and the evidence of this was squarely before Justice Osborn and Greg Garde and the rest of the lawyers. The only lawful supply, to the extent it existed, was the "non-potable" 1978 supply.

Tylden Rd

At his paragraph 5, Justice Osborn wrongly asserts that the series of contrived plans were effectively stages whereas on the facts before him these plans were not stages, either effectively or at all, they were clearly plans contrived to avoid a mistaken view of section 9 of the Sale of Land Act. There was not even the pretence of stages.

At his paragraph 6, Justice Osborn asserts:

"A council officer, Porter (now deceased) endorsed such plans as subject to the requirements originally imposed by Council with respect to the global plans of subdivision......."

My entire case was that the 18-lot plan had been abandoned and that the Council had made no resolutions at all in relation to the "contrived" plans. Therefore the Notices of Requirement issued in relation to these contrived plans were of no effect because they were not issued pursuant to any resolution of the Council. If however, as Justice Osborn asserts at his paragraphs 5 and 6, the plans were effectively stages and the endorsement on the "contrived" plans was made subject to the Council's requirements in relation to the 18-lot plan, then it follows that the "contrived" plans were not contrived but were lawful in all respects and the requirements were properly made.

Justice Osborn cannot have it both ways. It is plainly contradictory for him to then go on to say that I was fully aware that the plans and Notices of Requirement were unlawful. This is nonsense but consistent with Osborn denying that the Council was involved in wrongs while at the same time doing me in.

At his paragraph 8, Justice Osborn asserts "the Council then withdrew the requirements". The same argument applies - the Council could not withdraw that which does not exist. Justice Osborn's paragraph 8 depends upon the "facts" in his paragraphs 5 and 6, and fails for the same reasons.

At his paragraph 52, Justice Osborn says:

"....... it is performance of an obligation with respect to the provision of roads or services which is endorsed on the plan of subdivision and the subject of notice served upon him, which the owner is obliged to discharge...... "

This paragraph is wrong in law and this wrongness becomes important later in Justice Osborn's Reasons. The law is clear, there is no obligation endorsed on the plan of subdivision. There is merely an endorsement on the plan as to the fact that a requirement exists. This endorsement is in fact a notice to the Registrar of Titles who is prevented from approving the subdivision until the Council gives notice to the Registrar that the requirement, notice of which is endorsed on the plans, has been either complied with or withdrawn.

The obligation is set out in the specific terms of the Notice of Requirement served on the "owner" and the obligation under that Notice of Requirement exists whether or not the plan is sealed, i.e. the Notice is served up to 100 days before the plan is sealed. The obligation exists as and from the day of service and the obligation exists as a consequence of that service, not as a consequence of the sealing of the plan or the endorsement on the plan.

At his paragraph 58, Justice Osborn wrongly states that the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding specifically alleged that the plans were not lawfully sealed and lawful notices of requirement were not issued whereas the fact is that no such thing is alleged at all in the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding.

Then at his paragraph 60, Justice Osborn says:

"the critical allegation relied on is that the Council did not serve proper "requirements....." and

"......The plaintiffs' awareness of this fact is now said to have been triggered by the realisation that the plan 79305G did not show all the roads proposed to be laid out ...."

This statement by Justice Osborn is simply false and deceptive but nevertheless in sympathy with his wrong statement at paragraph 52. Justice Osborn has obtusely said that I realised the plan was unlawful and consequently I knew the "obligation" endorsed on the plan was unlawful. This is simply not true. Yes, I knew that the plan was "contrived" but this does not mean that the Notice of Requirement was unlawful or that I knew it was unlawful. This obtuse reasoning of Justice Osborn is derived from a misrepresentation of the law (refer my comments re his paragraph 52 above) and also a specific, and I think deliberate, misrepresentation of what was said by me. In my affidavit, I specifically said that my realisation was that the Notice of Requirement given in evidence in the Magistrates Court related to the plan bearing the reference number 79305/G and was not related to the 18-lot plan considered by the Council on 20th February 1980. [see paragraphs 53e) and g)iii) of my affidavit at the star] [my complete affidavit here].

The assertion by Justice Osborn at these paragraphs is false and based on the false submissions on "unlawful" plans made by the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority. Justice Osborn again provides verisimilitude to the misrepresentations of the lawyers and the Reasons of Master Efthim.

These "wrongs" by Justice Osborn seek to make right the misrepresentations of the lawyers and the culpability of the Council and Water Authority and to provide verisimilitude to the Reasons of Master Efthim. They are based on distortion of the law and distortion of my submissions.

********************

Top of Page ------ Menu Page