GORMAN v. UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY & ORS [1999] NSWSC 240

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : GORMAN v. UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY & ORS [1999] NSWSC 240 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : 10279 of 1999 HEARING DATE(S) : Monday 15 March 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 15 March 1999

PARTIES : GORMAN, Richard Francis v. UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY & ORS JUDGMENT OF : Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Plaintiff: In person Defendant: Mr. G. Craddock SOLICITORS : Plaintiff: Not applicable Defendant: I.V. Knight CATCHWORDS : Abuse of process University of Newcastle Act - s.16 ACTS CITED : Supreme Court Act - s.65 Supreme Court Rules - Part 13, Rule 5 DECISION : Action dismissed

GORMAN -4- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 10279 of 1999

GREG JAMES, J.

MONDAY 15 MARCH 1999

RICHARD FRANCIS GORMAN v. UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY & ORS

JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: 1 In these proceedings, the plaintiff, who appears in person, by an amended summons seeks orders that the first, second, third and fourth defendants instruct various faculties of those universities "to cogitate and teach, either as dogma or as controversy, the principles and practice of health care which have been potentially exposed by the discovery that vision improves, in appropriate patients, when the spine is manipulated"; that the fifth, sixth and seventh defendants act to ensure that the discussion and dissemination of what is said to be medical information to that effect is fair, unbiased, unrestricted, appropriately comprehensive, appropriately promulgated and primarily directed to the benefit of the community, and that the defendants supply the plaintiff with appropriately competent and expert health care professionals to facilitate his continuing treatment by spinal manipulation according to those principles. An order is also sought that the defendants act to address any ignorance of health care professionals on the matter to relieve the plaintiff of undue stress in regard to his concern for the health of his patients. 2 The defendants seek that the action be dismissed under Part 13 Rule 5 of the Rules. 3 The plaintiff has filed in support of the amended summons, two affidavits of his own and in addition an affidavit by Mr. Bilton. They have been read on the application. 4 I have been provided with a website extract concerning the Charter of the University of Sydney, one of the defendants, and on behalf of the defendants, Mr. Craddock of counsel who appears for them, has provided me with s.16 of the University of Newcastle Act 1989 as a specimen of the legislation which he indicates is applicable generally amongst the university defendants concerning their role and function. 5 I have enquired of the parties as to whether, on the question of standing, the application was brought for relief under s.65 of the Supreme Court Act. Mr. Craddock indicated that his real point was that, whether, under that section or otherwise, the action had no possible substance whatsoever, even if Dr. Gorman might add what he wished to the evidence he had already filed. 6 I enquired of Dr. Gorman as to what additional evidence he might wish to provide. He indicated that he wished to provide evidence of rejection by the Minister and the universities of the proposed evidence of the seriousness of his own condition for which spinal manipulation might be of assistance; that tunnel vision was a condition of seriousness from which he suffered and which could be relieved by the treatment; that he had been defamed by a representative of the University of New South Wales in a television programme; that certain evidence could be given on his part, that the Medical Tribunal could have reviewed a condition attached to his registration which was of long standing; that evidence going to, essentially, a refusal on the part of the Professor of Ophthalmology to countenance the teaching of the treatment at university, all could be put on. 7 I have reviewed all the material in the affidavits and take into account the evidence that might be put on, in accordance with what Dr. Gorman has said,. I have considered whether the plaintiff may have a special interest or not and whether he might have such an interest that might appropriately base relief under s.65. These were not proceedings by way of cross-action in some proceedings in which the plaintiff is being sued and wishes to seek indemnity or contribution, these are proceedings in which the plaintiff appears to be seeking declarations at least to the general effect or within the broad ambit of the orders as sought in the amended summons. He is unable to point to any legal duty whatsoever binding upon the named defendants particularly owed to him or in which he would have a particular interest in the sense known to the law or any principle of the law which would require the defendants to act in accordance with his wishes. Neither the evidence already on nor that which he indicates might be capable of being put on, in any way discloses some such cause of action, considering the material at its highest, that might dispose the court to grant him the orders sought, even if the discretion to grant a declaration might be exercised in his favour. 8 He does not seem to have standing. He does not seem to have a particular entitlement. There is some evidence to suggest that he might have the medical condition such that he might have a particular and personal basis for complaint about the unavailability generally of a treatment that he himself prefers. This is a different thing from that necessary to found a legal basis to require others to espouse a particular teaching and to disseminate that treatment. 9 I am unable to find any reasonable cause of action. In my view the maintenance of the action is, in that sense, frivolous and vexatious and an abuse. I dismiss the action. 10 I order the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs. **********