New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Jury v New South Wales Sheriff [2006] NSWSC 990 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 - SHERIFF EXECUTING JUDGMENT OF LOCAL COURT - NO UNLAWFUL CONDUCT BY SHERIFF IDENTIFIED - PROCEEDINGS DOOMED TO FAILURE - UCPR Pt13 r 13.4 APPLIED PARTIES : Eric Abraham Jury v New South Wales Sheriff FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20294/06 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 20294/06 - ERIC ABRAHAM JURY v NSW SHERIFF JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: There is before the court a Notice of Motion. The relief sought is limited to that set out in para 2 of the motion which seeks that the Statement of Claim filed on 26 July 2006 be dismissed pursuant to Pt 13 r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. As has been noted, the plaintiff in the action, Mr Jury, was present in Court together with a Mr Wilson. Mr Wilson was responding to a motion in a separate action which was similar to the one with which I presently deal. What might be described as submissions were made by Mr Wilson and Mr Jury contented himself by adopting those submissions. Essentially, the submissions were that the court was improperly constituted, that my commission as a judge was invalid, and that in any event no determination affecting a litigant could be made - in the absence of consent - other than by a jury. 2 The Statement of Claim seeks relief in relation to a judgment sum which was entered in proceedings in the Local Court. It scarcely needs to be observed that the structure of the Local Court is such that there is no trial by jury in that Court of any nature at all. 3 As the affidavit by Elizabeth Mee sworn 31 August 2006 reveals, there was in accordance with appropriate procedure ultimately a default judgment entered against Mr Jury for a sum in the order of $30,000 in respect of goods sold and delivered. The judgment debt has increased in relation to accumulations, no doubt of interest, and in respect of costs. 4 The Statement of Claim essentially asserts what is a refrain with which the court is not entirely unfamiliar, initially presented by Mr Wilson, concerning the invalidity of proceedings held without a jury. The documentation makes reference to ancient charters such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act and the Bill of Rights of 1688. There is also reference from time to time to statutes such as the Imperial Acts Application Act and the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983. All of these references are, no doubt, of interest but hardly relevant to supporting the Statement of Claim. 5 The situation is simply this. The plaintiff in the action, Mr Jury, is a judgment debtor in relation to a judgment regularly entered in a court seized with jurisdiction, and that the Sheriff is seeking to execute that judgment in accordance with the legislation, rules and procedures in such cases made and provided. 6 It seems to me that little will be gained by reiterating what judges have, in previous cases, said concerning the complete misconception which is revealed in the submissions on behalf of the plaintiff in the action and the relief sought in his Statement of Claim. It needs little more than a reading of the Statement of Claim to demonstrate that it is entirely untenable, that no relief could possibly be granted, and that in every sense the proceedings are doomed to failure. 7 It therefore follows that the relief sought in the Notice of Motion should be granted. I order that the Statement of Claim filed on 26 July 2006 be dismissed, and I order Mr Jury to pay the costs of the moving party. I observe that of course the nominated defendant is probably an inappropriate defendant in these proceedings in any event, but it does not seem to me that anything will be gained by canvassing that matter other than making this passing observation. The order that I make is as I have indicated. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.