RIZZUTI v FORSHAW [1989] NSWCA 176

RIZZUTI v FORSHAW SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

SAMUELS AP 27 November 1989

[1989] NSWCA 176

Samuels AP The short facts in this matter have been recounted this morning by Miss Oakley and they have been noted. I need not repeat them. It is possible that somewhere along this litigious path Mr Rizzuti has met with a wrong, an injustice, of some kind. But I am far from saying that that is so because I have not investigated the facts; and to do so is beyond the function of this Court.

At the moment he has an appeal in the Court from a decision of McInerney J, and that appeal will be heard before the middle of next year and may be an appropriate vehicle for the ventilation of complaints which I would judge he feels very strongly.

Litigants in person are of course permitted in the Court. Judges of the Court, and I venture to say particularly of the Court of Appeal, normally give them great latitude and go out of their way to assist them in order that any valid argument or complaint may be detected and enforced, which might otherwise go unrevealed because of the litigant's lack of legal knowledge. But there is a limit. We are not social workers and we are not here to provide catharsis for the consequences of grievances, even grievances which may have their genesis in some actual reverse.

The notice of motion seeks orders of the following kind: first, security in the amount of $500,000, and there is no evidence of any kind which is capable of supporting an order of that kind. Second, that three judges of the District Court be called to testify in this court; that in the alternative tapes of proceedings before those judges be heard. I interpolate something of this sort may be involved in the appeal to which I have referred. Third, that a calculation of damages for the plaintiff be re-examined; that some findings contrary to the procedures adopted by Master Monaghan be made and that certain persons, whose involvement in the matter is not made clear, be called to give evidence in the Supreme Court. I hope Ihave said enough to indicate that the notice of motion contains no substance of which, in my opinion, the court can take cognisance.