FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Stankovic v The Hills Shire Council (No 2) [2012] FCA 522
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
| Applicant | |
AND: | First Respondent TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE Second Respondent JASON SHANE CRONAN Third Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant’s application for leave to amend his application for leave to file and serve out of time be refused.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | NSD 690 of 2011 |
BETWEEN: | MICHAEL STANKOVIC Applicant
|
AND: | THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL First Respondent TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE Second Respondent JASON SHANE CRONAN Third Respondent
|
JUDGE: | EMMETT J |
DATE: | 4 MAY 2012 |
PLACE: | SYDNEY |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The applicant has applied for leave to amend his application for leave to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time. The original application was filed on 19 May 2011. There is annexed to the application a draft notice of appeal, the grounds of which are as follows:
1. “Compensation monies received by the Applicant/Appellant were not considered when sequestering my estate” [sic]
2. “Pursuant to s116[2] Bankruptcy Act 1966 [Cth], protected monies are exempt the provisions of s116[1]” [sic]
3. “Compensation monies are protected monies” [sic]
2 The proposed amended notice of appeal would add the words “and protected properties” to ground 3. That would make no sense, and would add nothing to the substance of the ground. The proposed amended notice of appeal would also join the State of New South Wales as Fourth Respondent, and the Commonwealth of Australia as Fifth Respondent, and would add ground 4 as follows:
4. “The First Respondent, The Hills Shire Council, is not “Local Government” because the Referendum of 1988, to establish and continue Local Government was defeated thereby abolishing Local Government throughout the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Fourth and Fifth Respondents, the State of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia, are vicariously liable for unlawful legislation that attempts to establish and continue Local Government” [sic]
3 To grant leave to amend by joining the Commonwealth and the State and including paragraph 4 would be futile. The proposed ground 4 appears to proceed on the basis of a complete misapprehension as to the effect of the failure of a referendum in 1988. Had the referendum been passed, power to legislate with respect to local government would have been conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament. That power presently resides in the State Parliament. The failure of the referendum had no effect on the power of the State. It certainly did not have the effect of invalidating State legislation establishing local councils. It did not have the effect of abolishing local government or local councils established under valid State legislation.
4 The application for leave to amend should be refused. There is no need for the State’s representative to remain in Court.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. |
Associate:
