Mr. J. Delany SC overtly misrepresented the “Book of Pleadings”
The “Book of Pleadings” was a document prepared by me in 1991 during the 1988 Tylden Rd proceeding. I compiled it by cutting and pasting legislation and evidentiary documents and then handwriting the meaning of this evidence and the law.
The 2005 proceeding was specifically based on an allegation that the Council had enabled Buchanan to avoid the “effect” of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act as distinct from avoiding a “simplistic view” of s.9 [details]. In 1991 I knew that it was impossible to avoid section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and it was not until August 2000 that I realised that the “effect” of s.9 could be avoided with the cooperation of a complicit Council.
The lawyers were representing that the “cause of action” was something to do with “unlawful” plans and they needed to show that I was aware of these plans too long ago. So they used the “Book of Pleadings” to demonstrate that, back in 1991, I was already aware of Buchanan’s avoidance of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act.
In relation to the “unlawful” contrived plans, I set out Buchanan’s intention to avoid section 9 of the Sale of Land Act and I also included copies of the legislation which showed that these contrived plans did not in fact enable or facilitate avoidance of s.9. In the “Book of Pleadings”, I had handwritten the note “Although Buchanan thought that he had exploited a loophole in the law, he had in fact broken the law”.
Mr. J Delany SC for the Council read selected extracts from pages 2 to 10 of the “Book of Pleadings” including my handwritten comment above, then at page 88 of the transcript, Delany said:
“In order to avoid the provisions of s.9 of the Sale of Land Act …… … Buchanan then lodged – what did he do? He lodged seven separate plans which were contrived, written in the plaintiff’s own hand, to create several subdivisions of two lots each“; AND
“This is the critical piece of information you’re being told that this poor man didn’t find out until 2000 ….”
Delany had represented to the Court that Buchanan had in fact avoided s.9 and I knew it. He used my written comment out of context and omitted to explain to the Court the law and my handwriting which was set out on pages 3 and 8 of the “Book of Pleadings”. This legislation and my writing clearly demonstrated that the contrived plans did not enable avoidance of s.9
By his selective inclusions and omissions, Delany falsely represented to Master Efthim that the “Book of Pleadings” demonstrated my awareness of plans which enabled Buchanan to avoid section 9 whereas the truth is that the “Book of Pleadings” clearly and unequivocally set out the complete opposite of what Delany represented. It set out that the contrived plans did not and could not enable avoidance of s.9. [details]
The “Book of Pleadings” demonstrated that the total extent of the “unlawfulness” of the contrived plans was that they did not show all of the roads or all of the allotments and this was set out in paragraph 20 of the Amended Statement of Claim in the 1988 proceeding.
Delany’s submission was, by omission, false misleading and deceptive. The truth was before him on the pages he read but he omitted and misrepresented that truth.