Bayliss v Australian Capital Territory Chief Ministers Department [2001] FCA 576

Original Word Document (53 KB)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bayliss v Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister’s Department [2001] FCA 576

ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAYLISS v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY CHIEF MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT & ORS

A 19 of 2000

ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAILIFF v AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE & ORS

A 77 of 2000

WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ

15 MAY 2001

CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 19 of 2000

BETWEEN:	ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAYLISS Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY CHIEF MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT First respondent
	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY URBAN SERVICES Second Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY STANDING COMMITTEE URBAN SERVICES Third Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY PLANNING AND LAND MANAGEMENT Fourth Respondent
	COMMUNITY HOUSING CANBERRA LTD ACN 081 354 752 Fifth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY HOUSING Sixth Respondent
	NATIONAL ROADS AND MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION ACN 000 016 722 Seventh Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY AND WATER LIMITED Eighth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN GAS LIGHT COMPANY LIMITED ARBN 052 167 405 Ninth Respondent
	ECOWISE SERVICES (AUST) PTY LTD ACN 083 075 030 Tenth Respondent
	CANBERRA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 003 157 515 Eleventh Respondent
	THE COX GROUP ACN 002 535 891 Twelfth Respondent
	PURDON ASSOCIATES PTY LTD ACN 008 610 080 Thirteenth Respondent
	PENDON CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 079 156 988 Fourteenth Respondent
	CIC PENDON PTY LTD ACN 088 774 789 Fifteenth Respondent
	CARDINAL ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 059 553 892 Sixteenth Respondent
	AMP LIMITED ACN 079 354 519 Seventeenth Respondent
JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 77 of 2000

BETWEEN:	ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAILIFF Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY First Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v LES ODEWAHN Second Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v SIMON BRETTELL Third Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY Fourth Respondent
	PHILIP ALAN SELTH Fifth Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY Sixth Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY Seventh Respondent
	PHILIP ALAN SELTH Eighth Respondent
	ANTHONY SAMANTHA KIDNEY Ninth Respondent
	JAN MARGARET BLANK Tenth Respondent
	CHRISTOPHER ALAN EDWARDS Eleventh Respondent
	ANDREW JEWELL Twelfth Respondent
	VERNON LEE Thirteenth Respondent
	ALISON MANDERS Fourteenth Respondent
	RM WILLIAMS Fifteenth Respondent
	SUSAN McGEE Sixteenth Respondent
	MARK MACKENZIE Seventeenth Respondent
	DAVID TONER Eighteenth Respondent
	MICHAEL SHIHOFF Nineteenth Respondent
	ERIN PARKER Twentieth Respondent
	ANDREW TAYLOR Twenty first Respondent
	SHARON KELLY Twenty second Respondent
	SHARON KELLY Twenty third Respondent
	HEATHER WALLACE Twenty fourth Respondent
	DOUG GILLESPIE Twenty fifth Respondent
	DI DEBENHAM Twenty sixth Respondent
	LES ODEWAHN Twenty seventh Respondent
	LES ODEWAHN Twenty eighth Respondent
	JOHN LALOR Twenty ninth Respondent
	WARREN NICHOLL ACT CORONER’S ARSON INQUIRY Thirtieth Respondent
	ACT TENANCY TRIBUNAL Thirty first Respondent
	ACT MENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL Thirty second Respondent
	ACT GUARDIANSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY TRIBUNAL Thirty third Respondent
	NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA Thirty fourth Respondent
	UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE Thirty fifth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY Thirty sixth Respondent
	UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thirty seventh Respondent
	UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY Thirty eighth Respondent
	HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA Thirty ninth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Respondent
	Australian capital territory magistrates court Forty first Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT Forty second Respondent
	HYATT HOTEL Forty third Respondent
	WIG AND PEN Forty fourth Respondent
	APPROVED SYSTEMS Forty fifth Respondent
	ANUTECH Forty sixth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1994/2181 14/4/94 Forty seventh Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1993/5124 10/5/94 Forty eighth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1993/1575 12/7/94 Forty ninth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1994/5102 30/3/95 Fiftieth Respondent
	NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE 18/09/96 $400 Fifty first Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1986/2291 19/8/97 Fifty second Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC1995/5869 19/8/97 Fifty third Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE V PETER BAUME Fifty fourth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v BRETT COOK Fifty fifth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v SIMON BRETTELL Fifty sixth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v LES ODEWAHN Fifty seventh Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v RACHEL MICHELLE PIERCEY Fifty eight Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v KATE KELLY Fifty ninth Respondent
	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE CC2000/4141 30/8/00 Sixtieth Respondent
	VICTORIAN POLICE Sixty first Respondent
	WALSHE & WHITELOCK Sixty second Respondent
	ROYAL DARWIN HOSPITAL Sixty third Respondent
	JASMINE COLLINS Sixty fourth Respondent
	ANNE COLLINS Sixty fifth Respondent
	CHRISTINE BAYLISS ACT – 592 7/12/95 Sixty sixth Respondent
	ACT/NSW CORONERS ON RTA MANSLAUGHTER OF VANESSA CAMILLE BAYLISS 7/12/85 Sixty seventh Respondent
	JACQUES ANTIQUES Sixty eighth Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY FALSE ACCUSATION OF THREAT TO KILL Sixty ninth Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 1^ST FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventieth Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 2^ND FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy first Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 3^RD FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy second Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 4^TH FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy third Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 5^TH FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy fourth Respondent
	RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 6^TH FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy fifth Respondent
	JUSTICE TERRENCE HIGGINS SUPREME COURT ORDER OF 1^ST MAY 1996 Seventy sixth Respondent
	JUSTICE JEFFREY MILES SUPREME COURT ORDER OF 7^TH NOVEMBER 2000 Seventy seventh Respondent
JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	15 MAY 2001
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

	A 19 of 2000
BETWEEN:	ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAYLISS Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY CHIEF MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT & ORS Respondents

	A 77 of 2000
BETWEEN:	ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRÉ SEBASTIAN BAILIFF Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE v MICHELLE PIERCEY & ORS Respondents

JUDGES:	WHITLAM, MADGWICK & KENNY JJ
DATE:	15 MAY 2001
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

1 Alexander Marcel André Sebastian Bailiff (who was formerly known by the surname Bayliss) has commenced two proceedings in this Court relating to judgments of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (“the Supreme Court”). Matter A 19 of 2000 purports to be an appeal from a judgment of Crispin J given on 17 March 2000, in which his Honour summarily dismissed an action commenced by Mr Bailiff in the Supreme Court. The order made by Crispin J was an interlocutory order and, accordingly, Mr Bailiff requires leave to appeal.

2 The originating application filed by Mr Bailiff in the Supreme Court was difficult to comprehend and was plainly frivolous and vexatious. His Honour therefore struck it out under O 29 r 4 of the Supreme Court Rules. A notice of motion also before his Honour suffered from similar defects and his Honour refused that relief as well.

3 Matter A 77 of 2000 is an application for leave to appeal from orders made by Miles CJ on 7 and 20 November 2000 striking out several purported appeals from magistrates and associated applications lodged in the Supreme Court Registry on 10 October 2000. These applications plainly suffered from the defects identified by the Chief Justice in his reasons given on 7 and 20 November 2000.

4 Notwithstanding the effective finality of the orders made by both judges it may confidently be stated that these are not cases where the discretion to grant leave should be exercised in favour of Mr Bailiff in accordance with the well known test laid down in Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397.

5 Application was made by Mr Bailiff this afternoon for adjournment of these appeals on the basis of a document entitled “Claim”. A copy of this document had been made available to us before we came on the bench. We had the advantage of reading it and we also heard what it was that Mr Bailiff wanted to say in support of his application for an adjournment. The explanation offered by Mr Bailiff for his failure to serve notices of appeal on the parties affected by these proceedings was not satisfactory. The adjournment was refused and Mr Bailiff then departed the courtroom.

6 Accordingly, the order of the Court is, in each matter, that leave to appeal is refused.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justices Whitlam, Madgwick and Kenny JJ.

Associate:

Dated: 18 June 2001

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Australian Capital Territory:	K Holmes

Solicitor for the Australian Capital Territory:	ACT Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Commonwealth of Australia:	A Hughes

Solicitor for the Commonwealth of Australia:	Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for NRMA:	DCD Harper

Solicitor for NRMA:	Abbott Tout

Counsel for Andrew Jewell:	S Hay

Solicitor for Andrew Jewell:	Vandenberg Reid

Date of hearing:	15 May 2001

Date of judgment:	15 May 2001

Top