This website exposes corrupt conduct in the court system of Victoria and particularly in and of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
In my view the material provided on this website will lead a reader to conclude Justice Robert Osborn fabricated Reasons for Judgment for the purpose of perverting the course of justice and in particular for the purpose of ignoring, denying and concealing the fact that Major General Greg Garde QC (now Justice Garde) and Jim Delany SC conspired with one another and their respective junior barristers and instructing solicitors to pervert the course of justice and obtain a wrongful judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria.
I appreciate that many losing litigants have a poor view of judgments made in the various courts and a reader would most often be justified in dismissing such allegations so rather than provide a summary which would test the credulity of a reader I will immediately provide hard evidence that the Reasons for Judgment published by Justice Osborn overtly fly in the face of the facts known to him.
The six parts of Chapter 1 provides snippets of the corrupt conduct of Osborn and the Supreme Court. The substantive detail is in Chapters 2 and following. I have constructed the material in this manner so that a reader may quickly gain an insight into the corrupt conduct of Justice Robert Osborn and then read the rest.
I completely dissect Osborn’s frabricated Reasons in the footnotes but an understanding of the material in Chapters 1 to 6 is necessary to an appreciation of the dissection.
To the details;
This page repeats and expands upon some of the material on the Home page
Hard evidence – upfront and between the eyes;
At paragraph 115 of his Reasons for Judgment dated 29th November 2006 Justice Robert Osborn said;
As I have already noted the amended statement of claim served in the Tylden County Court proceeding expressly alleged
(c) The firstnamed defendant did not serve or cause to be served any or any proper requirements with respect to the making of such roads. (my emphasis)
This paragraph along with each and every substantive paragraph published by Osborn was overtly false and in the face of the facts. The truth known to Osborn was that paragraph 7 of that Amended Statement of Claim unequivocally alleged service of a Notice of Requirement in respect of construction of roads and water works. (the following is a true copy of paragraph 7 of that Amended Statement of Claim).
As I will shortly demonstrate Osborn corruptly extracted out of context words from paragraph 20 of that 1991 Amended Statement of Claim and appended his own words “with respect to the making of such roads” to that out of context extraction to make the above false assertion. Paragraph 20 related to “purported” “Requirements” empowering the Council to hold and call upon Bank Guarantees as distinct from “Requirements” related to construction of Roads and Water supply.
Then at his paragraph 116, referring to that Amended Statement of Claim, Osborn falsely asserted: “ …. at the date of this document in 1991 the plaintiffs were fixed with knowledge …. ….. namely that valid notices of requirement were not served …” then in the first part of his paragraph 117, in the face of the unequivocal facts, Osborn falsely asserted;
Longstanding knowledge of this fact is further confirmed by a book of pleadings discovered in the Tylden County Court proceeding by the Plaintiffs and containing handwritten notations by the firstnamed plaintiff
Osborn also knew his paragraphs 116 and 117 to be false, the page numbered 9 of the said Book of Pleadings clearly and unequivocally asserted; “ …. a “Notice of Requirement” had been served …. “ and “therefore” s.569E(3) of the Local Government Act applied. A number of further entries asserted that the developer, Kenneth Buchanan, had been bound by the “Requirement” until the Council withdrew the “Requirement”. Nothing implied otherwise. (entire Book of Pleadings available here)
In addition Osborn was thoroughly aware that the Council and The Water Authority had admitted to the above reproduced paragraph 7 on eight separate occasions in their defence and amended defence and re-amended defence and further re-amended defence.
In addition the Council had given sworn evidence to the effect of paragraph 7 in the Magistrate’s Court at Bendigo and in the Supreme Court before Justice Kay.
In addition page 6 of the Affidavit of Michelle Elizabeth Dixon, solicitor for the Council swore that paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim alleged service of a Notice of Requirement related to construction of roads
In addition; in relation to paragraph 7 of this 1991 Amended Statement of Claim; at page 8 of the transcript of the first day of hearing before Osborn; Jim Delany SC, Barrister for the Council said;
“Now Your Honour if we go to the amended statement of claim which is at Tab 4 – sorry Tab 3 of Exhibit MED1, Your Honour will see that in Paragraph 4 – so this is 13 May 91 amended statement of claim……..Paragraph 4 says, “In February and March 1980 Mr Buchanan lodged with the council in purported compliance with s.569(1) of the Local Government Act, notices of intention to subdivide the land”. And then in Paragraph 7, it’s pleaded that, “On about 20 February 1980 the first defendant served the subdivider with a written notice of requirement under 569E(1) requiring him to construct works” and so on.” (my emphasis)
For a complete understanding of Osborn’s overt fraudulent misrepresentation I must explain a little about “Requirements” and “Notices of Requirement” followed by an examination of paragraph 20 which Osborn misrepresented.
A “Notice of Requirement” is a Notice which Council’s must serve if it required an owner of property being subdivided to do certain things.
The things which the Council may “Require” the owner to do are defined in the legislation and include that the Council may “Require” that the owner construct roads OR the Council may “Require” the owner to provide surety to cover the cost of the Council constructing the roads at the owner’s expense. These things are logically mutually exclusive and the law was also clear; the Council could do one OR the other.
The Notice served must define which of these things or “Requirements” the owner is required to do. This is not rocket science.
The Amended Statement of Claim referred to by Osborn was served in 1991 in a County Court proceeding initiated in 1988 wherein I sued Kyneton Council and Kyneton Water Authority for recovery of monies paid to them by me pursuant to bank guarantees provided by me. (now Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Coliban Water)
In 1980 I had provided guarantees to each of the Council and Water Authority at the request of my then service station customer and supposed friend and at that time widely respected local businessman and Whittlesea Shire President, Kenneth Raymond Buchanan J.P. I provided them to the Council and Water Authority on the understanding and implicit representations of the Council and Water Authority that Buchanan had an obligation at law to construct roads and water works to a property which he was subdividing and that Buchanan’s performance of that obligation was capable of being guaranteed. The subdivision was for 18 residential allotments.
As completely detailed below; In 1982 I discovered that Buchanan and his solicitors, Palmer Stevens & Rennick (“PS&R”) of Kyneton, were involved in corrupt property dealings wherein, amongst other things, they sold land twice over and I informed them I was reporting them to the police, In reply they made threats of violence toward myself and my family and that they would bankrupt me if I did go to the Police.
I did go to the police and have paid for it ever since. PS&R were also solicitors to the Kyneton Council. The principal of PS&R, Graeme Bolton and the Joint Shire & Water Authority secretary, Stan Porter, were close friends who would lunch together almost daily at the bowling club and as set out below the Council did “things” to assist Buchanan and PS&R in their corrupt deals, supposedly to attract development to Kyneton. (The Police said it was a Civil Matter – It wasn’t, it was criminal)
Within 7 days of my having informed Palmer Stevens & Rennick that I was reporting them to the police the Council and Water Authority began proceedings to call upon my bank guarantees and they did call upon them without first requesting or demanding that Buchanan carry out the works. At that time I owned a Service Station and did not know a “Requirement” from a hippopotamus. At that time I thought I had been duped by Buchanan who by then was a demonstrated fraudster and the fact was he had not done the works which I understood he was obliged to do. I did not think for one second that the Council would act fraudulently; the mere notion of such a thing was an anathema to my then naive mind. A short while later my solicitor told me that Buchanan had carried out the 18 lot subdivision in a manner intended to avoid the provisions of the Victorian Sale of Land Act. This involved processing a number of contrived 2-lot plans of subdivision in lieu of the 18 lot plan. (full detail of this corrupt conduct is at Chapter 8 and elsewhere in this book) (the present principals of Palmer Stevens and Rennick were not involved in any way and these things do not reflect on them at all)
Then in 1987 the Council sued me in the Magistrates Court for even more money because the roads had cost more than I had guaranteed. I had met my complete obligation under the guarantees and I had refused to pay.
At that time the Council put into evidence a single Notice of Requirement and what the Council said to be an 18 lot plan of subdivision and also the series of contrived 2-lot plans which the Council had sealed.
The express terms of the “Requirement” set out in the Notice of Requirement were that the Council required Buchanan to construct the roads and enter into a water supply agreement. It manifestly was not a “Requirement” which required Buchanan to give or empowered the Council to hold and /or call upon my Guarantees. In other words the Requirement set out in the Notice of Requirement was unequivocally a requirement pursuant to s569E (1)(a)(i) of the Local Government Act 1958 requiring construction of roads and manifestly was not and could not be construed to be a requirement pursuant to s569E (1) (b) or (d) which provided for the giving of gurantees.
Under oath the Council CEO, Graeme Wilson, gave oral and documentary evidence;
that the plans of subdivision had been filed with the Council on 12th February 1980.
the Council had had considered the 18 lot plan on 20th February and resolved to serve a Notice of Requirement on Buchanan in relation to that 18 lot plan; and;
that it had served that Notice of Requirement on or about 20th February 1980.
that the Council had then processed that 18 lot plan in several parts or stages.
This evidence provided legitimacy to the “Requirements” said to have been imposed by the Council in respect of each of the contrived 2-lot plans which the Council described as being parts of the 18 lot plan.
In the face of the express and unequivocal terms of the “Requirement” and other facts and the simple law a corrupt barrister for the Council represented and submitted that the “Requirement” set out in the Notice of Requirement empowered it to hold and call upon my bank guarantees. (I will discuss the notion of “corrupt” further below)
In other words the Council purported to have made a requirement empowering it to hold and call upon guarantees whereas the manifest fact was that it had not.
In the face of the same facts and simple and explicit law the “Learned” but manifestly compliant or inconceivably incompetent magistrate found against me and ordered that I pay the overrun of costs.
I appealed the Magistrates Orders to the Supreme Court.
At the appeal the Council repeated the evidence it had given before the Magistrate.
Not surprisingly, amongst other things, Justice Kaye found that the “Requirement”, by its express terms, was a “Requirement” which required Buchanan to construct the roads and water works and that it was NOT a “Requirement” empowering the Council to either hold or call upon my bank guarantees. Justice Kaye set aside the Magistrates orders and said the matter should never have come to court in the first place and if he could he would order that the Council’s lawyers not get paid. Justice Kaye did not expressly comment on the obvious fact that neither the Council nor the Council’s Barrister or the Magistrate could reasonably hold a belief as to the Council’s submissions or the decision made. (justice Kay’s full Reasons here)
By this time, for the reasons set out in Chapter 8 and elsewhere in this book, I knew that Buchanan and PS&R and the Council and Water Authority were each abundantly corrupt and I was of the firm view that the Council had processed the series of 2-lot plans for the purpose of assisting Buchanan in his intention to avoid the section 9 of the Sale of Sale of Land Act 1962 but I could not show that the mind of the Council was anything other than as asserted by it which was that it had processed the 18 lot plan in several parts or stages and that the “Requirement” served empowered it to hold and call upon my bank guarantees.
All I could say was that the Council had acted in mistake of law in “purporting” to have made and served and acted upon a “purported” “Requirement” which it said empowered it to hold and call upon my guarantees. The plain unequivocal fact however was that it had served Notice of a “Requirement” requiring construction of roads and it had NOT served Notice of a “Requirement” empowering it to hold or call upon my bank guarantees. (The “Notice of Requirement” is a document – the “Requirement” is the thing expressly set out in that document and which the owner is required to do). The “Notice of Requirement” was real and the “Requirement” that Buchanan construct the roads was real and lawful but the “purported” requirement empowering the Council to hold and call upon my guarantees was a figment of the Council’s fertile but corrupt mind and had been dreamt up by the Council or corrupt lawyers for the purpose of bringing a wrongful court proceeding and for validating the Council’s corrupt holding and calling up of my guarantees in the first place. (the “mind” of the Council is important)
On the strength of Justice Kaye’s Reasons and the simple facts as then known I decided to sue the Council to recover the monies but because I could not demonstrate anything more serious than mistake of law my proceeding was for recovery of monies had and received by the Council and Water Authority under mistake of law. That proceeding was in the County Court and was initiated in 1988.
The 1991 Amended Statement of Claim alleged in exact accord with the Reasons of Justice Kaye
The above reproduced paragraph 7 expressly and unequivocally alleges that the Council served a Notice of Requirement requiring the owner to construct roads and water works.
Paragraph 18 of the Amended Statement of Claim alleges that the Council withdrew that requirement.
In relevant parts Paragraph 20 then alleged as follows.
20 In the premises the firstnamed defendant was not entitled to retain and/or call upon the guarantee….
(a) That it failed to comply properly comply with ….. 569 and 569E in that;
(i) There was no or no proper or sufficient notices of intention given by the subdivider
(ii) The plans of subdivision sealed …… contravened…. …. …
(A) Did not show all allotments
(B) Did not show all the roads
(iii) The firstnamed Defendant did not serve or cause to be served on the subdivider any, or any proper or sufficient requirements within the meaning of s.569E(3)(b)
(iv) The purported requirements had been withdrawn.
(b) There was no other valid and/or enforceable basis or ground upon which the firstnamed Defendant could retain and or call up the first bank guarantee.
For his corrupt purpose Osborn invented his own personal overt misrepresentation of paragraph 20 and in particular subparagraph 20)a)iii).
It is important to note that paragraph 20) does not fly in face of paragraph 7 and does not allege and cannot be construed to allege;
that the Council did not serve a “Notice of Requirement” requiring construction of roads and water works;
that the Council did not make a requirement in respect of roads and water
that the Notice of Requirement and/or Requirement referred to in paragraph 7 in respect of roads and water was not served or not proper.
Paragraph 20 alleges that the Council was not entitled to retain and/or call upon the guarantee because it had not served a “Requirement” for that purpose and that the “Requirement” which the Council “purported” to have made (empowering it to hold and call upon guarantees) had been withdrawn
The fact that the Amended Statement of Claim pleads and was intended to plead as discussed by me above is supported by the Court notes of Barrister Francis Tiernan who both drafted the Amended Statement of Claim and appeared in the County Court. Francis Tiernans Court notes are explicit.;
At page 7 Francis’ Court notes say; “….. The Council made a requirement under s.569E(1)a(i)……. .. “
At page 9 Francis’ Court notes say; “.. …(C) The original Requirement had been lifted (i.e. withdrawn within the meaning of 569E(3)(ca) of the L.G.A.) by the Council ……. “
At page 11 Francis’ Court notes say; “8 Reasons why the plts say that the Def’s had no legal right or entitlement to call up the moneys comprising the 2 Bank Guar’s:- [A] There was no Requirement under s569E on the land, entitling the Council to call for or call upon the Guarantee… …. In this instance the only Requirement that had ever been made was a Requirement within the meaning of s569E(1)(a)(i) and (1A). Such requirement did not involve the calling for or giving of any guarantee. Therefore there was no legal basis at all for the guarantee… …. “
(Francis Tiernan’s Court notes may be viewed here)
Note:- Francis Tiernan’s notes were not in evidence
As discussed above Jim Delany, Barrister for the Council correctly described paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim where he said;
“And then in Paragraph 7, it’s pleaded that, “On about 20 February 1980 the first defendant served the subdivider with a written notice of requirement under 569E(1) requiring him to construct works” and so on.”” (my emphasis)
Delany then went on to make submissions in respect of paragraph 20. At pages 9, 10 and 11 of the transcript of 31st October 2006 the following exchange took place;
MR DELANY: …. ….. …and then 20, “In the premises, the council was not entitled to call up the first bank guarantee” can I assume Your Honour understands how that guarantee came about? (my emphasis)
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MR DELANY: Well now Your Honour – so Paragraph 20 is that the allegation that the council is not entitled to call up the guarantee and – in for the following reasons, and over on p.9A, the failed to comply properly or order division 569 and 569E and then details are set out including in (ii) that the plans of subdivision sealed by the council contravened (a) 569(1)(a), (b) 569(1)(a), (c) and that the Plans E, F, G and H did not show at all, or showed distinctly all new streets and roads and so on. (my emphasis – “p.9A” is a reference to paragraph (a) on page 9 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim)
And then over at p.10, the further allegation in (v) that “the purported requirements have been withdrawn by the council within the meaning of 569E(3) and (vi) that in contravention of 569E(3)(d) the first defendant caused to be lodged with the Office of Titles a statement to the effect that purported requirement/requirements had been complied with by the owner when in fact they hadn’t been” and the first defendant, that’s the council, knew that such requirement or requirements had not been complied with, so there’s an allegation of knowledge that the requirements hadn’t been met. And (b) “there was no other valid or enforceable basis upon which the first defendant” – that’s the council, “could retain or call up the guarantee”.
It is therefore clear that Delany understood and submitted that the Notice of Requirement referred to in paragraph 7 related to construction of roads and paragraph 20 related to a “Requirement” empowering the Council to hold and call upon guarantees and Delany did not say or imply that paragraph 20 related to roads or the Requirement or Notice of Requirement referred to in paragraph 7.
In addition, at paragraph 66 of his Reasons Master Efthim had benignly noted; (The hearing before Osborn was on appeal from the Orders of Master Efthim)
I note that paragraph 20 of the County Court Statement of Claim it was pleaded that the First Defendant was not entitled to retain and/or call upon the first bank guarantee as the First Defendant failed to properly comply with all provisions of Section 569E of the Local Government Act.
The fact is that Paragraph 7 unequivocally alleges that the Council did serve a Notice of Requirement. The “Requirement” which was set out in that Notice was a “Requirement” requiring Buchanan to construct roads. It was not a “Requirement” requiring Buchanan to provide surety and was not a “Requirement” empowering the Council “to retain and/or call upon the guarantee”; ipso facto; the Council was not entitled to retain and/or call upon the guarantee because “The firstnamed Defendant did not serve or cause to be served on the subdivider any, or any proper or sufficient requirements within the meaning of s.569E(3)(b)” (entitling the Council to “to retain and/or call upon the guarantee”)
Paragraph 20 very carefully and quite unequivocally alleges a (purported) “Requirement” empowering holding and calling up of guarantees was not served; it does not and cannot be construed to allege or imply that that the Notice of Requirement referred to in the above reproduced paragraph 7 was not served or was not valid and it does not allege or imply that the “Requirement” requiring construction of roads was not served or not valid. A “Notice of Requirement” is not a “Requirement”, it is a document giving notice of the “Requirement” set out in that document and service of that Notice document effects service of the “Requirement” set out in that document and in this case the Council “purported” to have served (given notice of) a “Requirement” empowering it to hold and call upon guarantees but it had not.
Paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim unequivocally alleges service of a Notice of Requirement; the “Requirement” which was served was a “Requirement” requiring construction of roads, paragraph 18 alleges that the Council withdrew that requirement.
Then quite separately, at paragraph 20 the Amended Statement of Claim alleges that the Council did not serve a “Requirement” empowering the Council to hold or call upon the guarantees and that; that “purported” “Requirement” had been withdrawn.
At pages 13 to 20 of the Transcript Delany took Osborn through the Book of Pleadings and read from the abovemention page 9 of the Book of Pleadings and said;
Buchanan was unable to realise the proceeds of sale due to” and then s.8A of the Sale of Land Act is set out, middle of the page, “And even though the plans were not yet sealed, a notice of requirement had been served, therefore” and an extract from 569E(3) is set out. (my emphasis)
Then after having taken Osborn through the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim and through the Book of Pleadings at page 28 of the transcript of 31st October 2006 the following exchange took place;
HIS HONOUR: The complaint is really that it was a plan of subdivision but it wasn’t proceeded with?
MR DELANY: That’s right, and that there was some back dating in relation to the seven lots, or the seven plans.
HIS HONOUR: In the sense that – – –
MR DELANY: The notice of requirement was dated prior to the date of the plans – or prior to the date of the 30th schedule relating to those plans. I think that’s the complaint.
HIS HONOUR: So the notice of requirement is transferred over from the global plan to the – – –
HIS HONOUR: To the – – –
MR DELANY: – – – individual plans.
HIS HONOUR: I understand.
MR DELANY: Now of course, then what happened factually is that the – – –
HIS HONOUR: And that – – –
MR DELANY: – – – the council released Buchanan from that requirement on the provision of the guarantee as I understand it, I think there’s no contest about that. (my emphasis)
It is thus abundantly clear that Delany’s understanding of and submissions in relation to paragraph 7 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim and the Book of Pleadings was that a Notice of Requirement had been served and that a “Requirement” had been imposed upon Buchanan in respect to construction of roads and that “the council released Buchanan from that requirement on the provision of the guarantee“
It is also clear that Delany’s understanding and submission and Master Efthim’s understanding of paragraph 20 of the 1991 Amended Statement of Claim was that paragraph 20 related to (purported) “Requirement” empowering the Council to hold and call upon guarantees.
In the face of all of the above things and for corrupt purpose Osborn extracted subparagraph 20)a)iii) of the Amended Statement of Claim and then deceitfully appended the words “with respect to the making of such roads” and then wrote his paragraph 115 and dependant and related paragraphs. (This is mild; wait until you read the rest of Osborn’s corrupt conduct)
The hearing before Osborn was on an appeal from the Orders of Master Efthim. As I will graphically and unequivocally demonstrate below the Council’s and Water Authority’s lawyers, and Barristers Jim Delany SC and Major General Garde QC and their respective junior barrister and instructing solicitors had conspired with one another to pervert the Course of Justice and to obtain a wrongful Judgment of the Court and the Reasons of the Master and his Orders were squarely based on that corrupt conduct and on the grievously negligent (or worse) conduct of my then Barrister, John Middleton QC.
By this stage I had endured in excess of 20 years of being subject to an endless chain of corrupt lawyers acting for the corrupt Council and Water Authority who misrepresented unequivocal facts; not open to reasonable contention; to a series of Courts and ministerial inquiries and at the appeal before Osborn I represented myself and put the unequivocal fact of and facts of the corrupt conduct of Delany, Garde and Co and also the grievous neglect of Middleton to him.
By the time of the hearing before Osborn; John Middleton QC had become Justice Middleton of the Federal Court. For the purpose of ignoring, denying and concealing the fact of the corruption of his and the Court’s friends and that they had perverted the course of Justice and obtained a wrongful Judgment Osborn then fabricated Reasons for Judgment which were fabricated in such a manner as to ignore, deny and conceal the corrupt conduct of Delany, Garde and Co and for that purpose to wrongly uphold and provided verisimilitude to the fatally flawed Master’s Reasons.
Osborn sat in his office and simply fabricated whatever was necessary to his corrupt purpose.