FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Carew-Reid v Joyce [1999] FCA 998 STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW-REID as trustee for VALERIE CAREW-REID SUZANNE CAREW-REID JANE CAREW-REID JASON CAREW-REID JASON DRYSDALE v THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, RICHARD FAIRFAX COURT, THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, JOHN JAMES HOCKLEY, ALISON FLEMING, BANKWEST LIMITED, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA AG 100 of 1998 KIEFEL J 16 JULY 1999 BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY AG 100 OF 1998 BETWEEN: STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW-REID As trustee for VALERIE CAREW-REID SUZANNE CAREW-REID JANE CAREW-REID JASON CAREW-REID JASON DRYSDALE First Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW-REID For and on behalf of the registered and beneficial shareholders of LLOYD MACKENNAL INTERNATIONAL CO PTY LTD Second Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW-REID For and on behalf of the registered and beneficial shareholders of CAREW CORPORATION PTY LTD Third Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW REID For and on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate of the late JOHN HASTINGS CAREW-REID Fourth Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW REID For and on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate of the late PATRICIA ELIZABETH CAREW-REID Fifth Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW REID For and on behalf of the registered and beneficial owners of Lot 136 Banbun Road, Gingin in the State of Western Australia Sixth Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW REID For and on behalf of the registered and beneficial owners of 135 Glyde Street Mosman Park in the State of Western Australia Seventh Applicant AND: NEIL KEVIN JOYCE TRADING AS STANTON AND PARTNERS First Respondent DAVID HURT Second Respondent THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Third Respondent ALISTAIR BORG Fourth Respondent ROGER JENKINS Fifth Respondent JOHN JAMES HOCKLEY Sixth Respondent DAVID LANCELOT JONES Seventh Respondent WAYNE HASTINGS CAREW-REID Eighth Respondent KENNETH ERIC BRADLEY Ninth Respondent CAROLINE THATCHER Tenth Respondent NICHOLAS DAVID CHARLES DILLON Eleventh Respondent CORRS WESTGARTH CHAMBERS (A firm) Twelfth Respondent LEONARD WALTER BUCKERIDGE Thirteenth Respondent ROBERT FALCONER Fourteenth Respondent ALISON FLEMING Fifteenth Respondent BANKWEST LIMITED Sixteenth Respondent ESTHER INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Seventeenth Respondent SIOK PAUY KOH Eighteenth Respondent JULIAN AMBROSE Nineteenth Respondent RICHARD FAIRFAX COURT Twentieth Respondent PETER FOSS Twenty-first Respondent THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Twenty-second Respondent DARRYL WILLIAMS Twenty-third Respondent JOHN WINSTON HOWARD Twenty-fourth Respondent FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA Twenty-fifth Respondent PHILLIP BARLOW Twenty-sixth Respondent MICHAEL PETER McMAHON Twenty-seventh Respondent ROBERT LAWRENCE Twenty-eighth Respondent GEOFFREY ARTHUR WATSON Twenty-ninth Respondent JOHN RODERICK McKECHNIE Thirtieth Respondent DENNIS REYNOLDS Thirty-first Respondent DR GRAHAM RAAD Thirty-second Respondent THE TOWN OF MOSMAN PARK Thirty-third Respondent TREVOR HARKINS Thirty-fourth Respondent THE REGISTER OF TITLES OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Thirty-fifth Respondent WILLIAM RAYNER Thirty-sixth Respondent RONALD PATRICK GETHIN Thirty-seventh Respondent ROBERT ANTHONY SMITHSON Thirty-eighth Respondent BRUCE WILLIAM DUCKHAM Thirty-ninth Respondent MACK HALL Fortieth Respondent DEE SEED Forty-first Respondent PAUL HEANEY Forty-second Respondent KENNETH WATKINS Forty-third Respondent MATHEW PETER HARTFIELD Forty-fourth Respondent JOHN HANCOCK Forty-fifth Respondent ALINTA GAS Forty-sixth Respondent PHILLIP HARVEY Forty-seventh Respondent WESTERN POWER CORPORATION Forty-eighth Respondent LENNARD ROBERTS Forty-ninth Respondent NOEL GARTLAN Fiftieth Respondent DAVID ROBSON Fifty-first Respondent NATHAN JOHANSEN Fifty-second Respondent MARK CUNNINGHAM Fifty-third Respondent ANTHONY DERRICK Fifty-fourth Respondent CHERYL EDWARDES Fifty-fifth Respondent THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Fifth-sixth Respondent JAMES HUNTER Fifty-seventh Respondent PETER WIESE Fifty-eighth Respondent PINO MONARCO Fifty-ninth Respondent BRUCE MOORE Sixtieth Respondent GRAHAME MOON Sixty-first Respondent IVOR ROBSON Sixty-second Respondent CON CAMARIARI Sixty-third Respondent THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER FOR AUSTRALIA Sixty-fourth Respondent GERRY WHITE Sixty-fifth Respondent KEN WONG Sixty-sixth Respondent DEBRA PATON Sixty-seventh Respondent NEVILLE OWEN Sixty-eighth Respondent KEVIN PARKER Sixty-ninth Respondent JUDGE: KIEFEL J DATE OF ORDER: 16 JULY 1999 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The proceedings be struck out as against all respondents. 2. Mr Carew-Reid, but not the other applicants, pay the third, twentieth, twenty-second, fifteenth, sixteenth and the twenty-fifth respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceedings including reserved costs, if any. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY AG 100 OF 1998 BETWEEN: STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW-REID As trustee for VALERIE CAREW-REID SUZANNE CAREW-REID JANE CAREW-REID JASON CAREW-REID JASON DRYSDALE First Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW-REID For and on behalf of the registered and beneficial shareholders of LLOYD MACKENNAL INTERNATIONAL CO PTY LTD Second Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW-REID For and on behalf of the registered and beneficial shareholders of CAREW CORPORATION PTY LTD Third Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW REID For and on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate of the late JOHN HASTINGS CAREW-REID Fourth Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW REID For and on behalf of the beneficiaries of the Estate of the late PATRICIA ELIZABETH CAREW-REID Fifth Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW REID For and on behalf of the registered and beneficial owners of Lot 136 Banbun Road, Gingin in the State of Western Australia Sixth Applicant STEPHEN FAULKNER CAREW REID For and on behalf of the registered and beneficial owners of 135 Glyde Street Mosman Park in the State of Western Australia Seventh Applicant AND: NEIL KEVIN JOYCE TRADING AS STANTON AND PARTNERS First Respondent DAVID HURT Second Respondent THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Third Respondent ALISTAIR BORG Fourth Respondent ROGER JENKINS Fifth Respondent JOHN JAMES HOCKLEY Sixth Respondent DAVID LANCELOT JONES Seventh Respondent WAYNE HASTINGS CAREW-REID Eighth Respondent KENNETH ERIC BRADLEY Ninth Respondent CAROLINE THATCHER Tenth Respondent NICHOLAS DAVID CHARLES DILLON Eleventh Respondent CORRS WESTGARTH CHAMBERS (A firm) Twelfth Respondent LEONARD WALTER BUCKERIDGE Thirteenth Respondent ROBERT FALCONER Fourteenth Respondent ALISON FLEMING Fifteenth Respondent BANKWEST LIMITED Sixteenth Respondent ESTHER INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Seventeenth Respondent SIOK PAUY KOH Eighteenth Respondent JULIAN AMBROSE Nineteenth Respondent RICHARD FAIRFAX COURT Twentieth Respondent PETER FOSS Twenty-first Respondent THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Twenty-second Respondent DARRYL WILLIAMS Twenty-third Respondent JOHN WINSTON HOWARD Twenty-fourth Respondent FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA Twenty-fifth Respondent PHILLIP BARLOW Twenty-sixth Respondent MICHAEL PETER McMAHON Twenty-seventh Respondent ROBERT LAWRENCE Twenty-eighth Respondent GEOFFREY ARTHUR WATSON Twenty-ninth Respondent JOHN RODERICK McKECHNIE Thirtieth Respondent DENNIS REYNOLDS Thirty-first Respondent DR GRAHAM RAAD Thirty-second Respondent THE TOWN OF MOSMAN PARK Thirty-third Respondent TREVOR HARKINS Thirty-fourth Respondent THE REGISTER OF TITLES OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Thirty-fifth Respondent WILLIAM RAYNER Thirty-sixth Respondent RONALD PATRICK GETHIN Thirty-seventh Respondent ROBERT ANTHONY SMITHSON Thirty-eighth Respondent BRUCE WILLIAM DUCKHAM Thirty-ninth Respondent MACK HALL Fortieth Respondent DEE SEED Forty-first Respondent PAUL HEANEY Forty-second Respondent KENNETH WATKINS Forty-third Respondent MATHEW PETER HARTFIELD Forty-fourth Respondent JOHN HANCOCK Forty-fifth Respondent ALINTA GAS Forty-sixth Respondent PHILLIP HARVEY Forty-seventh Respondent WESTERN POWER CORPORATION Forty-eighth Respondent LENNARD ROBERTS Forty-ninth Respondent NOEL GARTLAN Fiftieth Respondent DAVID ROBSON Fifty-first Respondent NATHAN JOHANSEN Fifty-second Respondent MARK CUNNINGHAM Fifty-third Respondent ANTHONY DERRICK Fifty-fourth Respondent CHERYL EDWARDES Fifty-fifth Respondent THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Fifth-sixth Respondent JAMES HUNTER Fifty-seventh Respondent PETER WIESE Fifty-eighth Respondent PINO MONARCO Fifty-ninth Respondent BRUCE MOORE Sixtieth Respondent GRAHAME MOON Sixty-first Respondent IVOR ROBSON Sixty-second Respondent CON CAMARIARI Sixty-third Respondent THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER FOR AUSTRALIA Sixty-fourth Respondent GERRY WHITE Sixty-fifth Respondent KEN WONG Sixty-sixth Respondent DEBRA PATON Sixty-seventh Respondent NEVILLE OWEN Sixty-eighth Respondent KEVIN PARKER Sixty-ninth Respondent JUDGE: KIEFEL J DATE: 16 JULY 1999 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE 1 On 26 May 1999 in Perth, I made orders directing the applicant, Mr Carew-Reid, to file a statement of claim by 25 June 1999 and I made directions as to service. I ordered that the considerable affidavit material which he had filed to that date, apparently in support of his application, be removed from the file. I explained to Mr Carew-Reid the need for him to set out his case against each of the 69 respondents named in these proceedings in clear terms and made an order to that effect. What has been filed as a result are two documents entitled Submissions on Statement of Claim. 2 The third, twentieth and twenty-second respondents and the fifteenth and sixteenth respondents apply to strike out the application and statement of claim. They are supported by the sixth and twenty-fifth respondents. A large number of the other respondents have not been served with notice of this application at my direction. So far as can be discerned from the documents filed by Mr Carew-Reid, his principal complaint is against the Public Trustee of Western Australia for its conduct as executor of the estate of his late father and mother after 16 September 1986. It would appear that those estates included two properties in Western Australia: one at Mossman Park and one at Gingin; and shares in two Carew-Reid family companies known as the Carew Corporation and Lloyd Mackennal International Company Pty Ltd. I take it that those assets have been lost or at least they have been lost to those who Mr Carew-Reid says were entitled as shareholders. He tells me, in submissions, that the Public Trustee spent considerable moneys but the only benefit from the estate was obtained by some of the other respondents to these proceedings. Just what took place and what conduct was involved nowhere appears from the statement of claim. 3 Others are also said to have played a part in what, at various points, is referred to as a conspiracy. The Bank of Western Australia Ltd was responsible for the custody of a title deed and some cash funds belonging to the companies. And whatever it did, the result which is alleged is that a large number of the respondents were able to assert ownership, control or possession over the title deed. The bank's solicitor is also joined as is the Deputy Public Trustee. The Premier of Western Australia and the State of Western Australia are also joined to the proceedings as is the Commonwealth as being responsible for a number of the other respondents. An explanation is not given in the documents as to why each of the other respondents is joined. Only some are specifically mentioned, such as lawyers who have represented parties in other proceedings against Mr Carew-Reid. Accusations of contempt of Court are made against them. The other respondents, I assume, are those persons, corporations or bodies who, for some reason, have had contact with Mr Carew-Reid whilst he has being pursuing his claims or involved in litigation. They include the Federal Attorney-General, the Prime Minister, the Registrar of Titles for Western Australia, the Commissioner of Police for that State, Western Power Corporation, and the Official Receiver for Australia. There are many others whose connection with the action cannot even be guessed at. 4 At one part of the documents, Mr Carew-Reid makes reference to a claim for $100 million damages. His principal aim, however, appears to be to have the Court make a declaration as to who are the proper shareholders of the two companies to permit him to cross-examine some people to see if affidavit material they have previously filed is false and whether facts were withheld from prior hearings by Judges of the Supreme Court of Western Australia so that certain of their orders could be set aside. In essence he seeks a review of earlier proceedings in other Courts. 5 In the latter respect, there is reference made to an action which was brought in the Supreme Court for rectification of the Share Register. There is also a statement of claim in proceedings brought I that Court which was amongst the material Mr Carew-Reid took me to, in which orders had been sought for the filing of accounts and explanations from the executor of the estates. Reference to the documents does not provide a pleaded case. Mr Carew-Reid conceded as much and he had filed an application for discovery before pleading. I will turn to that question again later. The documents do not, however, suggest to me that Mr Carew-Reid is able to make out any case. They do not refer to facts relevant to the grievance held against the Public Trustee and others who had something to do with the estates and the companies. They do not even attempt to identify the legal claim made. They do not explain what all the other respondents have to do with the proceedings. It seems to be the case that Mr Carew-Reid wishes to have an investigation into the conduct of the respondents in connexion with frauds visited upon him and the other applicants. 6 Mr Carew-Reid asked me to have regard to a document which he had earlier filed on 21 May which he said were also his submissions. I had previously read this document prior to the last directions hearing. The document contains a large number of annexures; prior affidavits and pleadings and other cases; his thoughts on the matter; and correspondence. I have had regard to parts of it which he took me to but it does not satisfy me that he is able to identify a case and, a case which lies within the jurisdiction of this Court. His reference, as I have said, has been to previous proceedings with respect to the estate and the shareholding. Apart from general allegations of wrongful conduct, he does not appear to take the matter any further or to explain how it is alleged that the Corporations Law, to which he made general reference, is relied upon for any relief in these proceedings which would appear to range much more widely than any dispute about who were entitled to be shareholders. In any event, it is not appropriate for the Court to wade through those documents to try to find a case for him. If they contain the necessary facts he relies upon, it is for Mr Carew-Reid to put them into some comprehensible form. That is what the Rules of Court require and for good reason. 7 I have mentioned that Mr Carew-Reid also sought premature discovery before his statement of claim was put in what he called "final form". I can see no basis for permitting that course. The statement of claim is so deficient I am satisfied that he is unable to identify claims beyond those he has already brought. 8 Mr Carew-Reid has had a sufficient time to formulate a case even though he has had disruptions. I listened to him for some time. His submissions did not assist. In the end, and whilst I would not usually take this course, I had to ask Mr Carew-Reid to complete his submissions. He has considerable recall of all that has occurred in the other actions but, unfortunately, he rambled through a large number of topics and I was not assisted by what he said. 9 The respondents point out that there is no apparent federal element in the matter to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court and that the other relief claimed concerning other orders would seem to me to be an attempt to re-hear matters determined in other Courts. I consider there is much in that. As I have said Mr Carew-Reid, when faced with the submission that there was no apparent Federal element, pointed only to the Corporations Law but did not explain to me how that body of law was relevant to each of these 69 respondents, what relief was sought or even the outline of a claim which had regard to that legislation. In my view, the proceedings as constituted are so embarrassing as to warrant their striking out. I cannot see any basis for allowing Mr Carew-Reid any further opportunity to amend them. 10 There were other matters raised by the applicants to the motion. They questioned Mr Carew-Reid's standing to bring the proceedings on his own account. His property, including any rights of action except for those involving personal wrongs to him, was and remains subject to a sequestration orders when these proceedings were brought. Further, it is not apparent how he can bring these proceedings on behalf of the other named applicants. It is not, however, necessary to further consider these matters. I propose to order that the proceedings be struck out. I have considered the matter from the point of view of all respondents and not just those before me today so the order will be that the proceedings be struck out as against all respondents. 11 I further order that Mr Carew-Reid, but not the other applicants, pay the third, twentieth, twenty-second, fifteenth, sixteenth and the twenty-fifth respondents' costs of and incidental to the proceedings including reserved costs, if any. 12 I wish also to add the following observation. Where it is sought to file initiating proceedings which are so obviously deficient, as they were in this case, it would be appropriate for the District Registrar to refer the matter to a Judge under O 46 r 7A. A Judge can then consider the giving of a direction as to whether the documents should be accepted and if not, provide short written reasons. That is a procedure which is undertaken in the Queensland Registry. It would prevent a large number of respondents being served, as 13 occurred in this case, and being put to the cost of having to respond to such material. I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel . Associate: Dated: 16 July 1999 The Applicant: In Person Counsel for the Third, Twentieth and Twenty-second Respondents: Mr J Thompson Solicitor Third, Twentieth and Twenty-second Respondents: Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia Counsel for the Sixth Respondent: Mr J Hockley Counsel for the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Respondents: Ms G Brachs Solicitor for the Fifthteenth and Sixteenth Respondents: John A Pease Counsel for the Twenty-Fifth Respondent: Mr J Peterson Solicitor for the Twenty-Fifth Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 16 July 1999 Date of Judgment: 16 July 1999