Utterly Corrupt Justice System of Victoria, Australia.

Home page

The unlawful "Water Supply Agreement"

Details

The unlawful "Water Supply Agreement" between Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments P/L was drafted by Graeme Bolton, principal of Palmer Stevens & Rennick (PS&R) who were solicitors for both WHRD and the Water Authority. PS&R were also financiers for WHRD through their mortgage arm PS&R Nominees. (To my knowledge the present solicitors associated with PS&R had no knowledge or association with these things.)

The "Water Supply Agreement" protected the interest of PS&R as well as WHRD, and the Council and Water Authority.

The Woodleigh Heights subdivision was a cluster subdivision registered under the Cluster Titles Act and registered with the Registrar of Titles as Cluster Subdivision number CS1134. All of the land not being an allotment was common property owned by the Body Corporate of CS1134.

The Water Supply Agreement was manifestly unlawful because the terms of the "Water Supply Agreement" set out:

"Woodleigh Heights Resort Developments Pty. Ltd. of 68 Piper Street Kyneton owner or occupier of ALL THAT piece of land being part of Crown Portions 38 and 41 Parish of Carlsruhe County of Dalhousie and being the whole of the land described in Cluster Plan of Subdivision No 1134 lodged in the Titles Office......."

So by the very terms of the Water Supply Agreement it was unlawful.

• Crown Portion 41 was entirely outside the Water District of the Water Authority and could not be supplied with water without the approval of the Governor in Council and that approval was neither sought nor obtained. [See section 186 Water Act 1956]
  
  
• WHRD is expressed to be "owner or occupier of all that piece of land ......". Occupier is plainly not "owner" and section 307AA(2) of the Water Act only provides for agreements with "the owner". The supposed agreement had no authority whatsoever at law and was ultra vires (without authority of law), it was neither lawful nor enforceable.
  
  
• WHRD was plainly a private company incorporated under corporations law and was not and never could be the Body Corporate of CS1134 and therefore did not and could not either own or occupy the common property.
  
  
• My allotments were allotments within cluster subdivision CS1134, by its very terms the "Water Supply Agreement" included my allotments. WHRD plainly was not owner of my allotments.

In addition:

• The "Water Supply Agreement" was in breach of the conditions of Planning Pemit 2191 and Planning Permit 4692 both of which required the Corporate Body to be responsible for all private facilities including water.
  
  
• The water main which was laid along Edgecombe Rd to convey water to the boundary of CS1134 was laid without the plans having been approved by the Minister. See section 307AA(5) of the Water Act.
  
  
• The unlawful "Water Supply Agreement" was not capable of being performed or complied with. There was no possible lawful means by which water could be provided to lands not owned by WHRD and the agreement specifically provided for supply to all of the land which included the common property and allotments not owned by WHRD.
  
  
• The request which was made to the Water Authority for the supply of water to the subdivision was made in the specific terms "As it is a cluster, that the Body Corporate purchase from the Watertrust 1,000,000 gallons of water annually and operate the internal water supply network themselves..... " [see letter dated 5th March 1981]
  
  
• The Water Authority resolved to provide water to the Body Corporate, not WHRD, and the unlawful "Water Supply Agreement" was entered into without a resolution of the Water Authority. It was later changed to an agreement with WHRD at the request of the developer Buchanan.
  
  
• The "Water Supply Agreement" was for fraudulent purpose, namely giving effect to the "proviso".

Mr. Ian Lonie misled the Minister

The matter of the "Water Supply Agreement" was raised in Parliament. The Water Authority then specifically recorded in its minutes that the "Water Supply Agreement" should have been with the Body Corporate but was not, and sought advice from solicitors Maddock Lonie and Chisholm on this specific point. [see item 4 on Water Authority Minutes]

Mr. Ian Lonie of Maddock Lonie and Chisholm (now Maddocks) attended at a Water Authority meeting on 10th April 1986 to advise the Authority on the "Water Supply Agreement". Immediately after getting advice from Mr. Ian Lonie, the Water Authority resolved to instruct Maddocks to write to my solicitor saying that "the Board believes it has complied with its obligations under the agreement". Subsequently, by letter dated 7th October 1986, Mr. Ian Lonie advised the Minister for Water in identical terms as those set out in the Authority's Minutes of 10th April 1986, and specifically said that the Authority had complied with the terms of the "Water Supply Agreement".

This "Water Supply Agreement" was simply an unlawful agreement; it was not capable of being lawfully complied with or performed at all. From the foregoing, it is clear that Mr. Lonie and the Water Authority were entirely aware of all of the relevant facts, and Mr. Ian Lonie and the Water Authority misled the Minister, probably on the specific advice of Ian Lonie.

The unlawful "Water Supply Agreement" was no different to you entering into a contract to sell your neighbour's house. Certainly you could purport to enter into such a contract, the document itself would purport to be a contract, however the piece of paper with writing on it is simply not a contract. You would be completely incapable of complying with the terms of that contract, and you would not be capable of performing that contract. Sure you could accept money, but the money received would not be pursuant to any contract. Similarly with the "Water Supply Agreement", either WHRD or the Water Authority could flood my land or squirt water all over it, but there was simply no means at law where they could lawfully "supply" water to that land in purported compliance with the so-called "Water Supply Agreement". Mr. Ian Lonie's advice to the Minister was misleading and concealed the fact that the "Water Supply Agreement" was unlawful.

Greg Garde, Ian Lonie, John Price, WHRD, the Council and Water Authority misled the Planning Appeals Tribunal

In 1987, due to the conspiracy and the "proviso", I was in default with my mortgagee MCL Finance (now Esanda). John Norman Price was solicitor for MCL and he was fully aware of the reasons for my default. Then, without any discernable reason, John Norman Price applied to the Supreme Court to take possession of my land. The land was vacant land, there were no rents to be received so there was no possible benefit to MCL in taking possession. MCL was capable of holding a mortgagee's auction without taking possession.

At this time WHRD were going bad and had applied to convert some of the timeshare land into ordinary residential use but the Council had refused that application. WHRD indicated that it intended to appeal to the Planning Appeals Tribunal. At about this time I learned that John Norman Price was also solicitor for WHRD. The facts related to the 1978 water supply were concealed from me at this time so I saw my only hope was to get authority (any authority!) to recognise that the 1982 Water Supply Agreement was unlawful and thereby force its transfer to the body corporate. For this purpose I prepared a submission to the Planning Appeals Tribunal which set out, as best I could at the time, that the Water Supply Agreement was unlawful and had effectively given control of the water supply and common property to WHRD. I sent a copy of that proposed submission to the Tribunal and to John Norman Price as solicitor for WHRD.

On the day of the hearing, I sat at the Bar table. This subsequently proved to be opportune because Ian Lonie and John Norman Price were then required to provide me with copies of their proposed submissions. These submissions contained first evidence of the 1978 water supply.

I read my submission to the Tribunal. Then Greg Garde, under instruction from John Norman Price, represented that I was a prior owner of no standing. This was true but only because John Norman Price had taken possession of the land on behalf of MCL.

In apparent specific response to the truth told by me, Greg Garde, under instruction from John Norman Price, said at page 4 of his written submission that the timeshare company had a “lawful and enforceable” agreement with the Water Authority.  [Garde's complete submission here]

In addition Ian Lonie of Maddock Lonie and Chisholm was present representing both the Council and Water Authority. He represented to the Tribunal that I was merely a trouble maker and said, to the effect, "Mr. Thompson has been everywhere with his allegations".

So, what a bunch, they were all present, the conspirators WHRD, the Council and Water Authority together with their legal teams and compliant advisers. [see page from Tribunal ruling]

• Peter Charles Everist was the Water Engineer who recommended that my land not have water because it was not owned by WHRD. [details]
  
  
• Ian Lonie was the solicitor who knew I "had been everywhere" because it was he who had misled the Ministerial inquiry. [see above]
  
  
• David Parkinson was Secretary to the Council and Water Authority, and wrote the letter saying my land could not have water because it was outside the Urban District. [details]
  
  
• Graeme Wilson was the Shire Engineer and CEO who gave false evidence to the Magistrates Court etc. [see cultural corruption video on home page for particulars] He was also the person who said my "For Sale" signs had to come down because they did not have a planning permit. [see letter]
  
  
• John Norman Price was solicitor for WHRD who conspired to prevent my land from having water, and was also solicitor for MCL with whom I could not settle because I could not get water.
  
  
• Greg Garde AO RFD QC was a newcomer but he must have been fully aware of all the relevant details and his submission was written in knowledge of and in apparent response to the truths set out in my submission.

My lone voice of truth had no hope.

Had any one of these people told the truth which was that WHRD was not the body corporate and the "Water Supply Agreement" was consequently unlawful, then the fraud would have been at an end. I would not have lost my land, there would have been no court cases against the Council and Water Authority, and Maddocks and Greg Garde would not have gone on to make hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consequence of this deception. More importantly I would still have faith in our justice system and this website would not exist.

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

Home page