GINIOTIS v THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLACKTOWN SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL KIRBY P, MEAGHER JA and WADDELL AJA 17 October 1990, 17 October 1990 [1990] NSWCA 66 JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT Meagher JA This is an appeal from Mrs Stella Giniotis from a decision of Badgery-Parker J given on 11 May 1990. At least I think that is what it is because a reading of the document leaves even that point quite ambiguous. The litigation has a distressingly long history and ought never to have been in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. On 22 October, 1981 a company called United Marker Pty. Limited sought specific performance of a contract for a sale of land from Mrs Giniotis and her husband, and perhaps a third person. The matter was compromised and certain orders were made on 22 October, 1981. The order of the court consists partly of actual orders and partly of notations of agreements. One of the heads of agreement contained in that document was the parties agreed that the plaintiff (the company) will connect the sewer to the cottages on proposed Lots 1 and 2 to be retained by the defendants at no cost to the defendants. One does not know whether United Marker Pty Ltd fulfilled that contractual obligation or did not, nor are we concerned with it. In any event, beginning i.n January, 1989 there commenced a bout or litigation between the Council of the City of Blacktown and Mr and Mrs Giniotis. The council served notices on Mrs Giniotis and on her husband, both severally and jointly, requiring them to connect the sewer and to abate the drainage nuisance. This was apparently not done to their satisfaction and informations were accordingly laid by the council for failure to comply with the relevant notices. Summonses were then issued pursuant to those informations on 30 June, 1989 and they were adjourned for hearing before the Local Court magistrate sitting at Blacktown on 1 November, 1989. Mr Simpson, the local magistrate, heard those summonses and convicted Mr and Mrs Giniotis each in respect of each information. In the litigation in the Supreme Court one gains the distinct impression that Mr and Mrs Giniotis feel strongly, even passionately, that the learned magistrate committed some injustice. Neither we nor any of the divisions of the court beneath us are in a position to examine that. In order to understand whether an injustice was or was not done one would have to know what the facts of the dispute were and what in fact transpired before the magistrate. Suffice to say, the appeal book does not enable us to understand either of those matters nor, if it did, could we do much about them, as we have no authority to pry into them. However, thus anguished, Mrs Giniotis appealed to the Supreme Court, New South Wales against apparently some part or all of the orders of the Blacktown Magistrate. That is obviously irregular as such appeals as lie from his Worship go 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS to the District Court, not to the Supreme Court. It is hardly surprising therefore that on 1 December, 1989 the Prothonotary struck out the document entitled "Notice of Appeal". Mrs Giniotis was not content with that and on 20 December, 1989 she filed an appeal from the obviously correct decision of the Prothonotary. That came before Master McLaughlin on 23 February, 1990 and the learned Master explained once more, very patiently and very courteously, to Mrs Giniotis that this Court had no jurisdiction and pointed out to her that it was inevitable that the appeal would have to be dismissed. He did dismiss it. Mrs Giniotis either cannot or will not listen to what officers of this Court tell her because, on being dissatisfied with the Master's decision, she then appealed to Badgery-Parker J on the same grounds and got precisely the same response. That appeal was also dismissed with costs. Not satisfied with a third explanation of her error, she has appealed to this Court. The results are, I am afraid, inevitable. The appeal must be dismissed and with costs. There is simply no means by which we can interfere in her affairs with the council as they are presently constituted. Kirby P I agree. Waddell AJA I agree also. The orders of the Court are that the appeal is dismissed with costs. The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: P. ROWE Solicitors for the Respondent: MOFFATT SULLIVAN (BLACKTOWN)