Jury v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 989

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Jury v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 989

HEARING DATE(S) : 19 September 2006 JURISDICTION : Common Law

JUDGMENT OF : Michael Grove J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 09/19/2006

DECISION : PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED GENERALLY

CATCHWORDS : SUMMARY JUDGMENT - REFUSAL BY LOCAL COURT REGISTRAR TO PERMIT FILING OF DOCUMENTS - DOCUMENTS LACKING CONTENT OR STATUS IN PROCEEDINGS - NO ERROR BY REGISTRAR DEMONSTRABLE - CLAIM DOOMED TO INEVITABLE FAILURE - UCPR Pt13 r 13.4 APPLIED

PARTIES : Eric Abraham Jury v State of New South Wales

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20281/06

COUNSEL : In person (Plaintiff) R.H. Weinstein (Defendant)

SOLICITORS : I.V. Knight (Crown Solicitor)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MICHAEL GROVE J

Tuesday 19 September 2006

20281/06 - ERIC ABRAHAM JURY v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: There is before the court a Notice of Motion, the relief in respect of which is limited to that set out in par 2 which is that the Statement of Claim filed on 18 July 2006 be dismissed pursuant to Pt 13 r13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Action was commenced in this Court by the plaintiff, Eric Abraham Jury, in which he claims relief which is specified as arising out of the refusal of a Registrar of the Local Court to receive documents sought to be filed by Mr Jury which he had titled "Notice Of Special Appearance" and "Affidavit In Support Of Special Appearance". He also seeks trial by jury and damages stated in the sum of $5 million to be paid to him by the State of New South Wales. 2 It appears that at the root of these proceedings is the service of a Statement of Liquidated Claim filed in the Downing Centre Local Court in which De Bortoli Wines Pty Limited was the plaintiff and Mr Jury was nominated as one of the defendants. The document titled "Notice Of Special Appearance" is not a document which has any status in accordance with Uniform Procedure Rules. 3 As I have indicated in a previous judgment given today, Mr Jury has adopted matters put to the Court by a Mr Wilson, and it is plain that what was being contended was that there is no jurisdiction in this Court to deal with any matter, and by implication no jurisdiction in the Local Court to deal with the matter there. It is of passing interest to note that if it was intended to challenge the jurisdiction of the Local Court, there are procedures whereby a motion can be brought without filing a formal appearance, the old procedure of conditional appearance having been abolished by the Uniform Rules. 4 Be that as it may, there is nothing to indicate that there was any error by the Registrar of the Local Court in refusing the tendered documents. Despite the somewhat limited relief sought in the Statement of Claim, there has been also filed in the Court a general case management document which annexes the proposed notice and the affidavit which were rejected in the Local Court. 5 It is perhaps of interest to make some observations about the content of the affidavit which is demonstrative of the utter misconceptions which seem to be affecting Mr Jury in relation to the litigation. Amongst other things there are references to Imperial Statutes and Charters, including the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act and the Bill of Rights of 1688. It is also asserted that Mr Jury is not a person in that he is not a mask. This appears to be based upon the proposition that the word "person" is derived from the Latin word "persona" which means mask. As a matter of passing interest that is true, but the word has multiple meanings, included amongst which is that it means a "personage". "Personage", if one goes to the dictionary, actually means a person of rank or distinction and it ill-serves Mr Jury to complain of such a description. I mention this matter only to demonstrate the somewhat bizarre nature of what is presented to the court. 6 I continue with some of the observations. There is reference, despite the earlier contention that the plaintiff, Mr Jury, was not a person, that he is a man that God created, and he makes reference to the Book of Genesis. This book, no doubt, would be of interest to those of the Judaeo or Christian faiths but may not be of great interest to those who do not belong to those faiths. He points out that he is neither slave nor serf (with which proposition I would respectfully agree) but this does not help him gain the relief that he has sought. 7 He makes reference to various sections of both the New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitutions. He refers to an e-mail said to have been received from the Privy Council suggesting that there were no orders for the appointment of, for example, the Governor General of Australia. Governors and Governors General, one would imagine, would be appointed not by order but by commission, as indeed are Judges. 8 Having made those references merely to demonstrate the utter irrelevance of the material that has been presented to this court, it becomes inevitable to conclude that the proceedings instituted by the Statement of Claim are doomed to failure. There is not the slightest indication that anything done was done otherwise than in accordance with proper and valid legal procedures. The claims made by the plaintiff are doomed to failure and there is no prospect whatever of success in the action. 9 Accordingly, in accordance with the prayer in the motion, I order that the Statement of Claim filed 18 July 2006 be dismissed pursuant to Pt 13 r13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. I order Mr Jury to pay the costs of the moving party.