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 1ST FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventieth Respondent RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 2ND FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy first Respondent RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 3RD FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy second Respondent RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 4TH FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy third Respondent RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 5TH FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy fourth Respondent RACHEL MICHELL PIERCEY 6TH FALSE ACCUSATION OF BREACH INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER Seventy fifth Respondent JUSTICE TERRENCE HIGGINS SUPREME COURT ORDER OF 1ST MAY 1996 Seventy sixth Respondent JUSTICE JEFFREY MILES SUPREME COURT ORDER OF 7TH 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