FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lindsey v Philip Morris Limited [2004] FCAFC 40

CORRIGENDUM

DAVID JAMES LINDSEY (NOW KNOWN AS DAVID JAMES SJOSTROM-CLEMENS-LINDSEY) v PHILIP MORRIS LIMITED

V55 OF 2004

WHITLAM, MARSHALL and FINKELSTEIN JJ

26 FEBRUARY 2004 (CORRIGENDUM DATED 2 MARCH 2004)

MELBOURNE

CORRIGENDUM

1.                  Replace [20] with the following:

“Two grounds of appeal are set out in the notice of appeal. The first is:

“GROUNDS:   IN relation to the Respondent’s FIRST MOTION dated 15/08/2003, filed the 18/08/2003, ‘That as NO EVIDENCE in reference to the Literary Meaning of FRIVOLITY before the Court in connexion to the proceeding generally and or in relation to any claim for relief was led, before Her Honour KENNY J on the 08/10/2003, KENNY J was incompetant (sic) and erred in Law by dismissing the Appellant’s Proceeding V408 of 2003, before the Court of First Instance usurping the Trial Judge’s position circumventing the precedent Golden Rule of Thumb as adhered too (sic) and contained within the Verbiage of Commentary by KENNY J’s Peer’s (sic), Order 20 Rule 2(1) pursuant the Australian High Court and Federal Court of Australia Rules of Practice and Procedure which Governs this Jurisdiction of federal Law by not allowing the Applicant to Proceed to Trial against the Respondent, undermining Public Trust in the Administering of Judicature (Judicial) function and or functioning.

            The second is:

“GROUNDS:   IN relation to the Respondent’s SECOND MOTION dated 15/03/2003, filed the 18/08/2003, ‘That if Her Honour KENNY J had not failed in her duty to maintain the integrity and sanctity of her Peer’s (sic) precedent Golden Rule of thumb as adhered too (sic) and contained within the Verbiage of Commentary, Order 20 Rule 2(1) pursuant the Australian High Court and Federal Court of Australia Rules of Practice and Procedure which Governs this Jurisdiction of Federal Law, questions in issue between the parties in the Appellant’s Proceeding V408 of 2003, before the Court of First Instance could have been corrected through the natural process of the Court.””

Associate:

Dated:              2 March 2004