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

 

This is a true story of local government fraud, lawyers who mislead courts
and a justice system which protects them.

We'll have your water rights removed...

[This page is merely a narrative to provide contextual background and understanding - the detail including copies of all relevant documents is in the other pages]

In 1979, I bought some land in a cluster subdivision called Woodleigh Heights in Kyneton, Victoria.  The Council wanted to encourage development in the area so, without telling me, they approved a planning permit for a company to turn the subdivision into timeshare resort. The planning permit was approved on the secret “proviso” that the timeshare company set up by Kenneth Raymond Buchanan would own all the land.  Trouble was, they didn't own all the land – I owned 10 of the 45 blocks.  So the Council got together with the local Water Authority and the solicitor who financed the timeshare company and cooked up a method of making sure my land could not be sold to anyone other than the timeshare company.  The solicitor drew up a "Water Supply Agreement" between the timeshare company and the Water Authority which, according to the Water Authority, gave control of the water to my land to the timeshare company.

A year or so later, the timeshare company offered to buy my land and I agreed to sell, but then the company then got into financial trouble and defaulted on the contracts.  I said, no problem, I will sell elsewhere. They said, if you try to sell to anyone else, we'll have your water rights removed and make your land worthless and you'll never be able to sell it to anyone else.  I didn't believe they could carry out this threat – after all, the water was controlled by the Water Authority.  Wasn't it?  That's when I found out about the dodgy "Water Supply Agreement" and I knew it had to be illegal.  I got legal advice and was told my best bet was to take the timeshare company to court to force them to pay up on the contracts, so I started Supreme Court proceedings.

By 1984, because I couldn't sell my land, I was having trouble making my mortgage payments, so my mortgagee, AGC, arranged a mortgagee’s auction.  First, the 'For Sale' signs were stolen, which I reported to the police, who threatened to charge the timeshare company if this continued.  Then the Water Authority took it on itself to write a letter to the estate agent saying that water was not available to my land.  AGC cancelled the auction because without water the land would not attract a bid let alone a good price. 

Immediately after the auction was cancelled, the timeshare company tried to buy my land direct from AGC at a ridiculously cheap price.

AGC then wrote to the Council and Water Authority to find out how this water supply problem could be fixed.  Before responding properly to AGC, the Water Authority changed its water boundaries so it could say that my land only had water if the timeshare company agreed. Of course, the timeshare company was never going to agree because they wanted to force me to sell my land to them at less that half its value. AGC gave up and waited on the outcome of my court case. 

My court case to get the timeshare company to pay up on the contracts was heard in September 1985. At the hearing, the Judge became very interested when AGC gave evidence that the auction had been sabotaged and that the timeshare company had then tried to buy the land cheaply from AGC. [see transcript] The timeshare company quickly decided it had better settle and agreed my land could have water.  The Judge made orders that the timeshare company agree to a water supply to my land and do all in its power to transfer the "Water Supply Agreement" to the body corporate for the subdivision.

My land now has access to water. Or does it...?

In the belief that the water supply problem had been sorted by the Judge's orders, I made arrangements to sell my land and put up 'For Sale' signs.  Like last time, the signs were stolen and again I reported this to police.  After a nasty incident, the police again threatened to charge the timeshare company if there was further trouble.

In the meantime, the timeshare company had told the Council and Water Authority I'd refused to sell my land to them.  The Council and Water Authority got right behind the timeshare company and decided to fix me.  Where the Water Authority previously said my land could only have water if the timeshare company agreed, they now said my land could not have water at all, with or without the agreement of the timeshare company.

For its part, the Council said that my 'For Sale' signs did not have a planning permit and, if I did not remove them, the Council would remove them at my cost.  I checked the Council’s permit register – no planning permit for a 'For Sale' sign had ever been applied for, refused or granted.  I bet I'm the only person in the history of Kyneton, if not Australia, to need a permit for a 'For Sale' sign.

The lawyers mislead Ministerial inquiries...

I contacted Mr. Max McDonald, Member of Parliament for Whittlesea.  He went to see the Shire Engineer in Kyneton and said the sign must be allowed to stay.  The day after Max McDonald intervened, the Water Authority again sent an unsolicited letter to the estate agent advising that water was not available to my land. I was forced to cancel the auction and immediately afterwards the timeshare company tried to buy it cheaply, exactly as had occurred when AGC's auction was sabotaged. The $10,000 per lot offered was less than half the $22,000 per lot that they had previously contracted to purchase the land for.

I showed this letter to Max McDonald.  He, like everyone else, could see that something crooked was going on, and decided to raise it in Parliament.  The Ministers for Local Government, Water and Police each agreed to look into it.

The police opened the file as a complaint against police then about a year later, when they learned that there was no complaint against the police, they closed the file, and that was the end of that.  So much for the police.

The Department of Local Government said "A lay person could not be expected to know the difference between the Council and Water Authority.  Water Supply is not a Council responsibility" and the Department of Local Government effectively did nothing.

The Water Board obtained legal advice from Mr. Ian Lomie of Maddock Lonie and Chisholm (now Maddocks). After Getting that advice the Water Authority adopted the line that it had complied with the "Water Supply Agreement". After a few months of inquiry the Department of Water Resources made a report which said the Water Authority had "complied with the terms of the Agreement" and passed it on to the Minister. The Minister wrote a letter to Max McDonald which said that anybody could use the Board's water subject to the agreement of the body corporate, and it was now up to me to negotiate a supply with the body corporate. In addition, Mr. Ian Lonie, solicitor for the Water Authority, wrote to the Minister for Water and said that the Water Authority had "complied with the terms of the Agreement".

Obviously, nobody had told the Minister that the "Water Supply Agreement" was an unlawful agreement, it wasn't with the body corporate, it was with the timeshare company!

So that was the end of it as far as the Ministerial inquiries were concerned.  Mr. Ian Lonie had misled the Minister for Water and protected the Water Authority by failing to inform the Minister of the fact that the "Water Supply Agreement" with the timeshare company was unlawful and could not be complied with. And the fraud continued. [details]

The lawyers mislead the Tribunal...

By 1988, the timeshare company was going bad, and applied for a planning permit to convert some of its land to ordinary residential use. The Council refused the application and the timeshare company appealed to the Planning Appeals Tribunal. I decided to make a submission to the Tribunal hoping to have someone in authority recognise what was happening.

I gave evidence to the Tribunal that the "Water Supply Agreement" was unlawful and had allowed the timeshare company to grab control of the common property.  The Council and Water Authority’s lawyer, Mr. Ian Lonie, represented me as a trouble maker, saying “Mr. Thompson has been everywhere with his complaints.”

Mr.(now Justice) Greg Garde AO RFD QC for the timeshare company represented that the timeshare company had a “lawful and enforceable” agreement with the Water Authority.  The Tribunal accepted the submissions of Greg Garde and Ian Lonie, and the fraud continued. [details]

About this time, the Council decided to sue me in the Magistrates Court for the rates. For the purpose of charging rates, the Council had valued my land at the same value as the timeshare company's land.  And yet the Council and Water Authority also said the timeshare land had water and mine did not, and my land could not have building permits.  How could they be valued the same?  I had refused to pay rates in protest. During the proceeding the Council refused to make documents available, I got a court order that the Council make available all relevant documents.  The failed to fully comply with the court order and instead withdrew the claim and paid my legal fees.  In about 1991 the Council again tried to sue me for the rates and again they withdrew and paid my costs.

The timeshare company gets my land. But the fraud continues...

By 1989, I had paid out AGC and MCL Finance (now Esanda) was now my mortgagee.  Mr. John Norman Price, solicitor for the timeshare company, and the solicitor who had instructed Greg Garde at the time of the Planning Appeals Tribunal hearing, also happened to be Esanda's solicitor.  While "acting" for MCL/Esanda and without advertising it for sale, he sold my land to Deckwood Pty. Ltd. This was a company controlled by the children of Kenneth Raymond Buchanan, a founding director of the timeshare company.  John Price sold my land to Deckwood at a price which reflected an "arranged value" (18 lots for $135,000 or $7,500 per lot).  On the day that Deckwood took title to my land, surprise, surprise, the land had water and was suddenly valuable again.  Deckwood then sold at least some of the land to the timeshare company at a profit (1 lot for $12,000). The timeshare company then converted it to timeshares, and sold it at timeshare prices through Club Kirribilli

I get access to Council documents and discover...

In 1995, after the Victorian Government amalgamated various councils including Kyneton Council to become Macedon Ranges Shire Council, I learned that the old guard had changed and that the Shire Engineer and Secretary were no longer employed.  I then asked for access to the files which had been refused me up to that point, and this time access was granted.  I discovered documents which proved the Council and Water Authority had engaged in fraud. These documents clearly showed that my land always had access to a water supply. They had concealed this fact from me, and from AGC, and from the Minister for Water.  This water supply had been approved by the Council in 1978 and was required by the original planning permit. It consisted of a lake, tanks and reticulation system. I requested copies of these documents but was refused.  I was prepared for this and began laying out the documents on the foyer floor and photographing them.  The Council then relented and agreed to provide copies, at a cost of course.

I then started a Supreme Court action based upon what I had discovered.  This proceeding alleged that I always had a right to the water supply which had been approved in 1978, and that the “Water Supply Agreement” was unlawful.  The Water Authority was represented by the same QC, Greg Garde, who had told the Tribunal that the “Water Supply Agreement” was lawful and the Council was represented by Mr. Steven Mark Edward.  The Court ordered mediation.  The mediator had a pre-mediation conference with the legal representatives of the Council and Water Authority. After that meeting he told me “I have learned enough” and that there was no need for a meeting with me.  At the so-called mediation, no mediation occurred.  The mediator told me that I would lose and be bankrupted if I did not settle, and that the Council and Water Authority were prepared to pay me a little bit to go away.  I had no idea what the mediator based his recommendation on; I thought I had a rock solid case. I was devastated but agreed to settle and the Council and Water Authority agreed to pay me $25,000.  As my losses were in the many hundreds of thousands, this was a bitter pill to swallow. Terms of Settlement were drawn by the mediator and signed that night.

The following day I spoke to an old friend, a barrister, who told me I'd been hoodwinked. But it was too late, I'd signed the Terms of Settlement.  Then, as fate would have it, the Council and Water Authority were late in making payment of the $25,000, so I refused to accept late payment and issued a Notice of Trial.  The Council and Water Authority then took me to the Practice Court to force me to accept the money and end the case.  At this Practice Court hearing, the legal representatives for the Council and Water Authority showed me a reticulation plan which showed that the principal water mains within the subdivision had been laid in 1982 and not when the plans were sealed in 1979.  They said, to the effect, “how do you explain this?”  I could not, as I had no idea that the water pipes had not been laid. 

This information was fatal to my case, because my case was based on the argument that the 1978 water supply existed, and that I was entitled to it!  How could I argue that I had a right to a water supply that did not exist?  Perhaps this is what the mediator knew, and why he said I would lose if I proceeded.  I can't imagine any other possible basis for the mediator's advice.  His recommendation now made sense.  The Court ordered me to accept the $25,000 and, on the basis of what I now knew about the reticulation not being laid when the plans were sealed in 1979, I knew there was no point in appealing.

The Council then decided to sue me for rates yet again.  I was damned if I was going to pay without a fight.  I looked at everything I had – thousands of documents – and filed my defence based on everything I knew at that time. 

At last it all makes sense...

After filing my defence, I continued to study the law and all of the evidence, including thinking about the reticulation plan which I'd seen at the Practice Court hearing. Then I made a very interesting discovery.  What I discovered showed that the Council had been involved in a scheme to assist the developer Kenneth Raymond Buchanan to avoid the law.  This law prevented sales on subdivisions until the Registrar of Titles had approved the subdivision, with services in place, and issued separate Certificates of Title.  With the Council's "cooperation", Buchanan had been able to sell some of the land on his subdivisions before the subdivisions were complete, without the services, and use the money from those sales to pay for the services.  And, of course, Buchanan was the shonky developer I'd bought the Woodleigh Heights land from.  [I had also been conned into buying land from Buchanan on another subdivision at Tylden Rd, Kyneton - this is a separate but intimately related story]

It suddenly all fell into place. The reticulation plan I'd seen at the Practice Court hearing showed that the services to Woodleigh Heights had not been completed when the Council sealed the Plans of Cluster Subdivision.  Buchanan had been able to sell me the land without the 1978 water supply being present, because the Council had sealed the plans of subdivision knowing, or not caring, that the water supply had not been completed, and there was no way the Council could force him to provide those services once the land had been sold.  The Council and Water Authority had been so desperate to hide these dirty deals that they'd been prepared to commit perjury in court.

I discovered these things late in August 2000 and decided to launch another Supreme Court proceeding on these new “causes of action” (the things causing my loss).  I engaged a barrister on a "no win, no fee" basis.  He was very slow-moving and it took him years to complete the documentation, but the problem was I could not sack him without paying for what he had done to date.

Guilty! You had eggs for breakfast...

The Council and Water Authority then applied to the Supreme Court to have my new action struck out without trial.  The matter was heard by Master Efthim in November 2005.  The Council was represented by Maddocks, the same firm as had misrepresented the facts to the Ministerial Inquiry and Tribunal.  The Water Authority was represented by Steven Edward and the same QC, Greg Garde, who had told the Tribunal that the “Water supply Agreement” was “lawful and enforceable”.

The grounds for the strike-out application were that I knew about the "causes of action" too long ago and they had not been concealed from me. The lawyers for the Council and Water Authority could not prove these things in relation to the true "causes of action". Instead they specifically and overtly misrepresented the law and the contents of a document prepared by me back in 1991 and they said that unlawful plans were relevant to the "cause of action", so Master Efthim did not even adjudicate on the correct issues. Unfortunately my own QC failed to set the record straight on what the true "causes of action" were and instead appears to have got caught up by the false arguments put by the other side. Master Efthim found against me based on things which were both irrelevant and untrue.

Master Efthim may as well have found against me because I had eggs for breakfast. [full details are on the Lying Lawyers and Efthim pages]

Guilty! Where there's a will, there's a way....

I appealed and the hearing came on before Justice Osborn in November 2006.  Having lost faith in my lawyers, I had decided to represent myself. I knew I'd be nervous as hell getting up and speaking before the Supreme Court so I'd prepared written submissions in advance which set out, in explicit detail, the fact that Master Efthim had been misled by the lawyers for Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Coliban Water.

The lawyers for the Council and Water Authority repeated their misrepresentations before Justice Osborn. Then it was my turn. I stood up and told the Court that the "causes of action" had ZERO to do with unlawful plans. I saw the heads of seven lawyers spin towards me. I handed up my written submissions and the Court adjourned to read them. Even if the lawyers made their misrepresentations negligently, they now knew that they had misled Master Efthim and they had obtained a false judgment.

In the face of what was set out in my written submissions and what they knew to be the law and the facts the lawyers held their line.

After my submission, the true "causes of action" had been made clear to Justice Osborn, and he could not rely on the irrelevant submissions of the lawyers to find against me.   He had the facts before him and their assertions were plainly false.  He could not confirm the findings of Master Efthim because it was clear that Master Efthim had made his judgment in relation to the wrong things.

Justice Osborn, and the Court, had a major problem.  To find either for or against me on the facts would necessarily mean exposing the misrepresentations which had been made by a number of QCs and barristers and solicitors, together with the fact that they had obtained a judgment based upon those misrepresentations.  To make matters worse, I had demonstrated that the barrister who represented me before Master Efthim had failed to put my case, and he had since been appointed a Judge of the Federal Court.  These things were serious indeed and, if acknowledged by the Court, would reflect extremely badly on the administration of justice and the "friends of the Court" concerned, namely the barristers and solicitors.

Whether or not these things figured in Justice Osborn’s mind is irrelevant. The certain fact is that Justice Osborn went on to publish Reasons for Judgment which fly in the face of the law and the facts which were before him and plainly known to him.  He spent a great deal of care on his Reasons which effectively ignore, deny, conceal and/or make wrong the facts and my allegations of the numerous misrepresentations, and found against me. [full details are on the Osborn pages]

After Justice Osborn had published his Reasons for Judgment, and before he'd made Orders, I made a very strong submission to him, pointing out that his Reasons were manifestly wrong.  Regardless, Justice Osborn went on to make orders against me including ordering punishing indemnity costs against me.  I believe this was done to punish me for speaking out and exposing the fact that solicitors and barristers mislead courts.

I filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal.

Ned Kelly was executed...

Then the lawyers for the Council and Water Authority made application for orders for security for costs (money lodged with the Court to cover their costs of the appeal).  A short while later I got a letter from the solicitor for the Water Authority, saying that my appeal had been filed too late.  With his letter were copies of supposed “Authenticated Orders” of the Supreme Court of Victoria. These supposed “Authenticated Orders” had the effect of making my appeal invalid.

Now hang on, if my appeal had been filed out of time, why did the lawyers bother to apply for security of costs?  Surely they would have jumped straight on it and had my appeal ruled invalid. 

Make no mistake about the seriousness of this; Ned Kelly was executed on the basis of “Authenticated Orders".  They are not issued carelessly and recklessly.  Yet the Supreme Court of Victoria had issued two sets of supposed "Authenticated Orders", each containing complimentary "errors". These complimentary "errors" did not occur by accident. [details]  

I complained loudly to the Court, pointing out the "error" and new Authenticated Orders were issued – corrected under the “slip” rule.  My appeal was allowed to stand.

The Application for security for costs then came on before Justice Redlich and Buchanan of the Court of Appeal.  I submitted that, due to the facts, including the conduct of Justice Osborn, I had a right to an appeal that should not be based on my ability to pay up front.  In regards to the conduct of Justice Osborn, I pointed out the complimentary "errors" in the supposed "Authenticated Orders".  But Justice Buchanan merely said, to the effect, “there is nothing in your allegations about the Authenticated Orders”,

The lawyers for the Council and Water Authority, knowing full well that they had misled both Master Efthim and Justice Osborn, pointed to the fact of the judgments of Master Efthim and Justice Osborn and held the line that the Judgments had been honestly obtained. The Court went on to order that I file $60,000 for my appeal to proceed.

Is there a brave QC in the house...?

I knew what I needed was a brave QC to put my case to the Appeal Court, someone with the guts and integrity to stand up in court and tell the truth about the misrepresentations made to the courts so far, and put the facts regarding the conduct of Justice Osborn.  I engaged a QC and junior barrister, but when I discussed the case with them, neither would say a single solitary adverse thing about the conduct of the lawyers and barristers which by now had misled a string of inquiries, tribunals and courts.  Nor would they say anything against Justice Osborn.  They refused to act for me, citing reasons which I simply dismiss out of hand, and gave me an account for some $53,000 for this "service".

I formed the view that their was a brotherhood in place in the court system, and realised I had no hope of winning in a system prepared to compromise justice rather than compromise the façade of integrity. I decided to abandon my appeal and go public as I am doing now.

To find "unfounded" or not "unfounded", that is the question...

I thought that would be the end of the court proceedings, however a short while later I received notice that the Water Authority's lawyers, Steven Mark Edward and Greg Garde QC, had made application to the Appeal Court to have punishing indemnity costs awarded against me.  The grounds for this application were that my allegations, including my allegations against them, were “unfounded”.

In reply I made extensive written submissions providing evidence such that the Court could not find my allegations “unfounded”.

The hearing came on before Justices Neave and Mandie of the Court of Appeal; they had read my submissions before the hearing.  The mind of the Court became apparent when Justice Mandie said to Greg Garde QC, to the effect, “I would have thought you could have made this application on the grounds that the appeal was hopeless”.

Justices Neave and Mandie then published Reasons for Judgment which did not find my allegations “unfounded”.  They declined to make Judgment on this issue, they instead made indemnity costs orders against me based upon an assertion by them that the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Osborn showed that my appeal was hopeless. This was despite the fact that this was not the grounds of the application and despite the fact that on the evidence before them they were on notice that Justice Osborn's Reasons were not based on fact or law and that Steven Edward and Greg Garde had misled the court.

Having regard to the extreme seriousness of my allegations, I have no doubt if Justices Neave and Mandie could have pronounced them “unfounded”, they certainly would have, and in very strong terms.  They specifically declined to do so. [full details under the Neave et al pages]

So, in summary:

The fight goes on...

The Council is now having a further go at suing me for the rates. Their solicitor Ms. Jacqueline Sue Partridge of Maddocks has sworn an affidavit to the Magistrates Court at Broadmeadows which says:

"The issues in the Supreme Court proceeding have been determined and decided in favour of the Macedon Ranges Shire Council."

The truth of course is that Master Efthim was misled and did not determine the issues at all and Justice Osborn's Reasons were fabricated in the manner set out on this website. Ms Jacqueline Partridge was in Court when the things set out on this website before Master Efthim and Justice Osborn occurred.

 

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that you can't get control of your neighbour's water.

**********

Top of Page ------ Menu Page