Maas v Smith & anor [2009] NSWSC 62

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Maas v Smith & anor [2009] NSWSC 62

HEARING DATE(S) : 16 February 2009 JURISDICTION : Common Law

JUDGMENT OF : Michael Grove J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 16 February 2009

DECISION : Notice of Motion dismissed

CATCHWORDS : MOTION PURPORTING TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS - Remedy provided by statute otherwise than by approaching court - Motion dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED : Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Defamation Act 1974

CATEGORY : Procedural and other rulings

PARTIES : Gabrielle MAAS - Plaintiff SMITH and SECURITY INDUSTRY NEW SOUTH WALES - Defendants

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 10841/09

COUNSEL : In person - Plaintiff Mr McDonald - Defendants

SOLICITORS : In person - Plaintiff Crown Solicitor - Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MICHAEL GROVE J

Monday 16 February 2009 10841/09 - GABRIELLE MAAS v SMITH and SECURITY INDUSTRY NEW SOUTH WALES JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Listed before the court is a notice of motion brought by Gabrielle Marie Maas which nominates as defendants Mr Smith and Security Industry New South Wales. It does appear that Mr Smith is the registrar of the security industry body. Ms Maas seeks various forms of relief, some of it is injunctive relief, in respect of which she claims are defamatory statements about her by the registrar. I have pointed out to Ms Maas that there is no appropriate jurisdictional foundational document filed by her at this stage. She apparently appeared before the Duty Judge last week and was given short service leave in respect of this notice of motion. Despite that order, that would not cure the difficulties that presently exist. 2 As has been pointed out by Mr McDonald, who appeared on the instructions of the Crown solicitor, the nominated second defendant is incorrect. In any event, the complaint fundamentally made by Ms Maas is remedial pursuant to the operative statute, whereby she could appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Ms Maas apparently recognises that, but indicates that she came to this court because she thought it might be a little quicker. Other relief sought under the notice of motion includes relief pursuant to the Human Rights Act of the ACT and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. There is also reference to the Defamation Act 1974. How its former existence be of relevance is not entirely clear now. 3 These proceedings are entirely misconceived. It is clear that there is no merit involved and I propose summarily to dismiss the notice of motion and I so order. In the circumstances I don't propose to make an order for costs and exercise my discretion accordingly.