ROUVINETIS v DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1998] NSWCA 197

ROUVINETIS v DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MASON P, SHELLER JA and FITZGERALD AJA 8 September 1998, 8 September 1998 [1998] NSWCA 197

LEGALLY incomprehensible appeal — matter non-justiciable in a civil proceeding in the Common Law Division

Fitzgerald AJA This proceeding arises indirectly from disputes concerning the appellant's tenancy from the respondent. The initial dispute related to threats of eviction for alleged non-payment of rent. The more recent dispute concerned alleged noise from the appellant's premises. An earlier proceeding between the parties, No 30068/96, was determined by Dunford J on 17 July 1996. The present proceeding, No 11648/97, was later commenced by the appellant in the Common Law Division by summons. This appeal is brought from the decision of Barr J on 16 June 1997 dismissing the summons and ordering the appellant to pay the respondent's costs in an amount to be agreed or assessed.

There is a question as to whether the respondent has been correctly named in the summons, but no point has been taken, and these proceedings have been treated as though conducted against the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation, also known as the Department of Housing.

The respondent was the only defendant named in the summons, which claimed:

"That the Department of Housing Commission of New South Wales or its personnels named in the affidavits have to answer charges in accordance of:

(1) 101 clause of the Crime Act 1900 No 40.

(2) 249c clause of the Crime Act 1900 No 40.

(3) 375 "1" "2" clause of the Crime Act 1900 No 40. (4) 393 clause of the Crime Act 1900 No 40.

(5) D2 545B "1" "a" of the Crime Act 1900 No 40."

An affidavit by the appellant sworn in support of his summons suggests that his complaints relate to letters which he allegedly received threatening him with eviction, an alleged failure to appreciate his prompt responses and efforts to advert misunderstandings, alleged inflammatory statements by the respondent, alleged misleading documents and statements by the respondent "creating a havoc of misunderstanding out of nothing", leaving the appellant to suspect conspiracy, alleged arbitrary correspondence convincing the appellant that the respondent's ".... personnels were trying to upset and have me respond to the rush with matching frivolity in an effort of gaining something against me", alleged abuse of office, intimidation and annoyance by the respondent, and alleged "... inaction of the departmental personnels for no apparent reason...".