Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Golden v V'landys [2019] NSWSC 1362 Hearing dates: 3 December 2018, 1 February 2019, 11 June 2019 Decision date: 16 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: 1. Strike out the statement of claim filed 28 August 2018. 2. Dismiss the proceedings with costs. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – strike-out application – proceedings for judicial review and misfeasance in public office – same causes of action determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties – attempt to re-litigate issues previously determined by the court with additional evidence – plaintiff bound by manner in which his lawyers conducted previous case JUDICIAL REVIEW – application out of time for review of decision no longer having any operation – whether proceedings inutile Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28, 13.4(1), 59.10 Cases Cited: Golden v V'landys [2015] NSWSC 1709 Golden v V'landys [2016] NSWCA 300 Webber v Racing NSW [2019] NSWSC 46 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Joseph Paul Golden (plaintiff) Peter V'landys (first defendant) Keven P Greene (second defendant) Anthony G Hodgson (third defendant) Racing New South Wales (fourth defendant) Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff self-represented P Braham SC, D Birch (defendant) Solicitors: Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (defendants) File Number(s): 2018/263736 Publication restriction: None Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: Mr Joseph Golden is a professional thoroughbred horse breeder and trainer. By these proceedings, in which Mr Golden represents himself, he seeks to prosecute a number of causes of action pleaded with varying degrees of clarity against Racing NSW, the body responsible for regulating the thoroughbred racing industry in NSW, and a number of its officers or directors. 2. The defendants have applied to have Mr Golden's statement of claim struck out and the proceedings summarily dismissed. I have concluded that the orders sought by the defendants should be made, for the following reasons. Circumstances in which the proceedings are brought 1. In 2007, an outbreak of equine influenza was confirmed in Australia. The disease (more particularly, the quarantine measures imposed to contain it) had a devastating impact on horse racing and other equine industries, which were literally brought to a standstill. To support those industries, the Commonwealth government introduced a scheme known as Commercial Horse Assistance Payments (CHAPs) to provide financial assistance for horse-dependent businesses affected by those events. 2. According to an information sheet circulated by the Australian Government, the financial assistance available under the scheme was for trainers of horses that were "in work", that is, horses undertaking "activities that generate, or have the potential to generate, an income for the owner". The information sheet specifically stated that the scheme was limited to racehorses in work and did not extend to horses that were "spelling" (being rested). 3. Mr Golden formed the belief that the CHAPs scheme was being rorted through fraudulent applications, including instances of trainers seeking payments for horses that were injured or spelling. In early 2008, he raised his concerns with Mr V'landys, the Chief Executive Officer of Racing NSW. According to Mr Golden's pleadings in earlier proceedings brought by him (also against Mr V'landys), Racing NSW was at that time administering payments under the CHAPs scheme under a funding agreement with the Commonwealth. Mr Golden contends that his concerns were not investigated by Mr V'landys or Racing NSW. 4. Mr Golden evidently drew the inference that Mr V'landys was involved in or at least unconcerned by the rorting of the CHAPs scheme. He reported the matter to NSW Police. He later complained to the NSW Ombudsman that police had failed to investigate the matter. He also raised the matter with many other authorities including members of Parliament, the Treasury, the then Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd) and the Commonwealth Ombudsman, all apparently to no avail. 5. In late 2010, Racing NSW imposed a restriction on Mr Golden against racing one of his horses, Abilina, more than once every seven days (apparently based on a review of the condition of the horse). Mr Golden subsequently entered Abilina for two races fewer than seven days apart, whereupon he became liable for a scratching fee of $80 in respect of a race Abilina was not permitted to run. Mr Golden reacted angrily. He wrote to Racing NSW accusing Mr V'landys of corruption and incompetence in his review of the horse. The letter stated that Mr Golden should be suing Racing NSW for the cost, stress and inconvenience of Mr V'landys' interference in the racing of Abilina and concluded "any subsequent accounts you send to me should be hastily shoved up [Mr V'landys] arse until such time that the $80 fee is reversed". 6. Racing NSW determined to call upon Mr Golden to show cause why his trainer's licence should not be suspended or revoked on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence as a trainer. Mr Golden responded by reprising his allegations concerning the CHAPs scheme. The thrust of his response was to allege that the direction concerning Abilina was part of a witch hunt commenced against him by Mr V'landys as retribution for Mr Golden's exposure of the maladministration and misappropriation of the CHAPs fund. From that time, Mr Golden began something of a one-man campaign seeking to bring attention to the CHAPs issue, including by standing in public areas of Grafton holding placards that read "RACING NSW CORRUPT CEO, ROBS TAXPAYERS". The show cause notice was amended to include his response letter and the Grafton placards. 7. On 8 June 2011, Racing NSW suspended Mr Golden's thoroughbred trainer's licence for a period of six months. On 24 June 2011, he was "warned off" all racetracks within the control of Racing NSW on the basis that his presence was not desirable (the 2011 decisions). 8. In the earlier proceedings to which I have referred, Mr Golden sought judicial review of the 2011 decisions on the grounds of actual bias and apprehended bias on the part of Mr V'landys, improper purpose, the taking into account of an irrelevant consideration, bad faith and unreasonableness or serious illogicality. He also sought damages for misfeasance in public office. 9. The proceedings were heard at first instance by Adamson J. Her Honour rejected all of Mr Golden's claims and gave judgment for the defendants: Golden v V'landys [2015] NSWSC 1709. 10. Mr Golden appealed from that decision. The appeal was confined to the warning off decision (presumably because the license suspension was by that time spent). The issues in the appeal were whether the primary judge should have found that decision was affected by apprehended bias on the part of Mr V'landys, whether the primary judge should have found that the decision was made for an improper purpose and whether the primary judge should have found that the decision constituted the tort of misfeasance in public office. The Court of Appeal upheld Mr Golden's appeal in respect of the ground of apprehended bias. The basis on which it was held that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias was satisfied was that, at the time the warning off decision was made, Mr V'landys and Racing New South Wales had instructed lawyers to send a concerns notice to Mr Golden concerning alleged defamatory imputations conveyed by the placards he had displayed in Grafton. The letter demanded an apology and payment to Mr V'landys of damages and his reasonable legal costs on the strength of the very conduct that had been included in the amended show cause notice: Golden v V'landys [2016] NSWCA 300 at [99] (Payne JA; Leeming and McColl JJA agreeing). The Court held that the test for apprehended bias was satisfied: at square brackets [91] to [110]. 11. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed. In particular, the Court held that the claim for damages for misfeasance in public office must fail as Mr Golden had failed to prove Mr V'landys' knowledge of or reckless indifference towards the invalidity of the warning off decision: at [149] to [153]. 12. Mr Golden next applied for a thoroughbred trainer's licence on 18 November 2016. In February 2017, Racing NSW refused that application (the 2017 licence renewal decision). 13. In August 2018, Mr Golden commenced these proceedings seeking judicial review of the 2017 licensing renewal decision but also of the 2011 decisions which were the subject of the earlier proceedings. All of the review applications are out of time. 14. In addition to seeking judicial review of the 2011 decisions, the earlier proceedings sought damages for misfeasance in public office. The present proceedings repeat that claim with reliance on additional allegations and joining additional parties, being two of the members of the sub-committee that refused to renew Mr Golden's licence in 2017. The earlier proceedings were brought against Mr V'landys and Racing NSW. The defendants to the present proceedings are Mr V'landys, Mr Kevin Greene, Mr Anthony Hodgson and Racing NSW. 15. The burden of the complaint underlying all of the claims is that Mr Golden has been victimised as a whistleblower as a result of his strident and ongoing criticism of the people and organisations he alleges were involved in rorting the CHAPs scheme. Mr Golden has made it clear that, in order to make good his claims in these proceedings, he seeks to prove that the allegations he has made concerning the CHAPs scheme are true. He criticises the solicitors who previously acted for him for not adducing that evidence in the earlier proceedings. For example, par 201 of the pleading states: "Between 2013 & 2015 Mr Golden's lawyers played down CHAPS fraud because counsel did not wish CHAPs fraud to smother Mr Vlandys [sic] misfeasance in public office & Mr Golden was not the slightest bit happy with lawyers [sic] decision because Mr Golden insisted his claim was about CHAPs, CHAPs & CHAPs," 1. Indeed, he appears to accuse them of accepting bribes not to run the case he wanted to run, saying at par 201(c): "Mr Golden believes lawyers may have received payments to scuttle Mr Golden's claim by not presenting CHAPS fraud facilitations given to them & for Court [sic]" 1. The statement of claim seeks a broad range of declaratory and compensatory relief calculated to vindicate Mr Golden's allegations of corruption in the administration of the CHAPs scheme and to regain his status as a licenced thoroughbred trainer with compensation for the training opportunities lost as a result of his allegedly wrongful exclusion from the industry. The defendants' application 1. The defendants' application was brought by amended notice of motion filed in Court on 3 December 2018. The defendants seek orders striking out the statement of claim and dismissing or permanently staying the proceedings. The motion was heard on 3 December 2018. Within days after the conclusion of that hearing, Mr Golden wrote to the Court indicating that he had omitted to tender critical evidence. The matter was accordingly relisted on 1 February 2019. The defendants did not oppose the further tender and did not object when Mr Golden sought to make further oral submissions. 2. Within days after that second hearing, Mr Golden wrote to the Court claiming that he had not had sufficient time at that hearing to address the Court. He apparently also sought to put further material before the Court. In due course Mr Golden sent a further affidavit followed by a notice of motion which was ultimately listed before me on 11 June 2019. Mr Golden's position at that hearing was in some respects confused but his principal objective appeared to be to reopen his case so as to rely on his affidavit sworn 10 April 2019, which addressed the extent of his alleged damages. Again without opposition from the defendants, I admitted that material on the basis that it would be given such weight as was warranted. The statement of claim 1. The statement of claim is prolix and confusing. It includes passages lifted wholesale from the pleadings in the earlier proceedings, in which Mr Golden was legally represented, combined with lengthy additional commentary obviously written by Mr Golden himself. 2. It is clear from a comparison of the present pleading with the pleading in the earlier proceedings that Mr Golden seeks in these proceedings to re-litigate many of the claims in the earlier proceedings using additional evidence, being the material he has gathered to support his allegations concerning the alleged rorting of the CHAPs scheme. The statement of claim provides a lengthy and highly detailed account of Mr Golden's discovery of the alleged fraudulent misallocation of CHAPs funds, the complaints he made and other events that followed. He cites examples of his alleged victimisation by Racing NSW, such as unfair handicapping of his horses compared with other horses (par 162 of the statement of claim), which he attributes to his status as a whistleblower. 3. The pleading sets out horse-by-horse detail of the events that have troubled Mr Golden, expressed with the most strident criticism of all involved including allegations of incompetent or dishonest trainers destroying horses and rorting the system, bullying stewards giving Mr Golden an unfair run, reckless CHAPs administrators and numerous allegations of CHAPs embezzlements, fraud facilitations and cover-ups. 4. The pleading also addresses Mr Golden's application for a trainer's licence following his success in the Court of Appeal and the fact that the application was rejected. 5. Finally, the statement of claim sets out the loss and damage Mr Golden claims to have suffered as a result of the decisions to suspend his licence and warn him off Racing NSW racetracks. The alleged damage includes loss of the ability to carry on his business and subsequent loss of income and assets. The defendants' submissions 1. The defendants submit that Mr Golden's statement of claim should be struck out in its entirety because it is incoherent, agitates issues which have or should have been determined in the previous proceedings, is brought out of time and makes irrelevant and extravagant claims against the defendants and other persons who are not parties to the proceedings. That aspect of the application invokes r 14.28(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), which provides: The court may at any stage of the proceedings order that the whole or any part of a pleading be struck out if the pleading: (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence or other case appropriate to the nature of the pleading, or (b) has a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceedings, or (c) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. 1. The defendants further submit that it would be inappropriate to allow Mr Golden leave to file an amended statement of claim as his evidence establishes no arguable cause of action. They submit that the proceedings should be dismissed under r 13.4(1) of the UCPR, which provides: If in any proceedings it appears to the court that in relation to the proceedings generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings: (a) the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, or (b) no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, or (c) the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court, the court may order that the proceedings be dismissed generally or in relation to that claim. The 2011 licence suspension and "warning off" decisions 1. The defendants specified four grounds on which the statement of claim should be struck out. The first is that it seeks judicial review of the 2011 decisions, which have already been judicially reviewed (including the "warning off" decision, which was quashed by the Court of Appeal in Golden v V'landys [2016] NSWCA 300). 2. The defendants note that orders one to five sought in the statement of claim concern those decisions. In fact, upon close examination of the earlier pleading, those first five prayers for relief are identical to the orders sought in the earlier proceedings, save that Mr Golden has added words of his own. The orders sought in the current proceedings are set out below with the new words underlined: "(1) A declaration that the decision on or about 8 June 2011 of the Licensing Committee of the fourth defendant [Racing NSW – RNSW] to recommend to the first defendant [Mr V'landys] that the trainer's licence of the plaintiff [Mr Golden] be suspended for six months was beyond power or otherwise invalid as it excluded Mr V'landys' public fund fraud facilitations and cover up. (2) A declaration that the decision of the Licensing Committee of about 24 June 2011 to recommend to Mr V'landys that Mr Golden be permanently warned off race tracks in control of RNSW was beyond power or otherwise invalid as it excluded Mr V'landys' public fund fraud facilitations and cover up. (3) A declaration that the decision of 8 June 2011 of Mr V'landys to suspend the trainer's license of Mr Golden was invalid as it excluded Mr V'landys' public fund fraud facilitations and cover up. (4) A declaration that the decision of Mr V'landys of 24 June 2011 to permanently ban Mr Golden from race tracks under the control of RNSW was invalid as it excluded Mr V'landys' public fund fraud facilitations and cover up. (5) An order in the nature of certiorari setting aside the decision of Mr V'landys of the 24 June 2011 to permanently ban Mr Golden from race tracks under the control of RNSW and not reissue Mr Golden a horse trainer's license." 1. As I understood Mr Golden's oral submissions, the added words reflect exactly what he seeks to achieve by these proceedings. He contends that his lawyers in the earlier proceedings wrongly failed to present evidence of the CHAPs fraud and he now seeks to re-litigate the claims brought in those proceedings with the benefit of that evidence and with a view to proving a separate basis for having the decisions quashed. That is clearly an abuse of process. The position is beyond doubt in respect of orders 2 and 4 as the warning-off decision has already been quashed and accordingly the subject matter of those contentions no longer exists. But in any event, it would condone an abuse of the court's process to allow Mr Golden to have a second run at the case previously put concerning the 2011 decisions. 2. It follows that, to the extent that the statement of claim seeks to re-litigate the earlier application for judicial review of the 2011 decisions, it is plainly liable to be struck out. The 2017 licence refusal decision 1. The second objection relates to the part of the pleading that seeks judicial review of the decision of February 2017 not to issue a trainer's licence to Mr Golden. Mr Golden contends that decision represented a continuation of the "warning off" decision set aside by the Court of Appeal and is evidence of his ongoing victimisation as a whistleblower. 2. Orders 5, 7, 9 and 10 sought in the statement of claim are directed to that decision. Order 5 is set out above. Orders 7, 9 and 10 are: "(7) A declaration that the decision of Sub-Committee of the board of Racing NSW and Mr KP Greene on or about 7 February 2017 not to reissue Mr Golden's trainer's license and on the grounds that Mr Golden is not a fit and proper person to be licensed as a trainer was beyond power or otherwise invalid. (9) A declaration that the decision of Sub-Committee of the board of Racing NSW Mr Hodgson [Certified Practising Accountant of Ferrier Hodgson Chartered Accounting firm and founder], on or about 7 February 2017 not to reissue Mr Golden's trainer's licence on the grounds that Mr Golden is not a fit and proper person to be licensed as a trainer with Racing NSW, was beyond power or otherwise invalid. (10) An order in the nature of certiorari setting aside the decisions of Mr Greene & Mr Hodgson [G&H] of the 7 February 2017 with Mr Golden's a trainer's licence application refusal on the grounds Mr Golden is not a fit and proper person to be licensed as a trainer was beyond power or otherwise invalid and continued Mr V'landys' life time training ban for Mr Golden to race horses on tracks under the control of RNSW by not reissuing Mr Golden a horse trainer's licence." 1. As noted on behalf of the defendants, it is difficult to discern the parts of the pleading intended to support those prayers for relief. It would appear to include at least paragraphs 271 to 277. Those paragraphs do not provide a coherent account of any justiciable claim. The deficiency can be illustrated by paragraphs 272 to 274, where Mr Golden states: "272 RNSW Directors presented themselves at 30 January 2017 as condoning all of Mr Vlandys [sic] 2008 decisions & actions against Mr Golden, as to be acceptable conduct. RNSW are also liable for all Mr Golden's losses & assets & income restorations. 273 Mr Golden prepared a 2017 CHAPS budget for horses under similar reasonable eligibility conditions to 2007-2008 CHAPS. a. $235m Actual 2007-2008 [DAFF] CHAPS spent, minus DAFF $38m 2007-2008 CHAPS Audit reports available, minus actual horse runner estimates for 2016-2017, calculated with real horse numbers [& with 2007-2008 CHAPS rates] calculated around $47m maximum CHAPS required for 2016-2016 RNSW & ACT CHAPS horses for twelve months, totals $150m CHAPS mismanaged embezzled stolen fraud facilitated public funds. 274 Mr Golden spent 30 years building a breeding & racing business to see it struck down by bumbling incompetent DAFF Ministers & RNSW Agent who played catastrophic roles in Mr Golden's business destruction." 1. The pleading of that aspect of the claim is incomprehensible and is plainly liable to be struck out in its present form. 2. I am not persuaded that Mr Golden should have leave to re-plead that aspect of the claim. As submitted by the defendants, it is significantly outside the period prescribed under UCPR r 59.10 for commencing such proceedings. That rule provides: (1) Proceedings for judicial review of a decision must be commenced within 3 months of the date of the decision. (2) The court may, at any time, extend the time for commencing proceedings fixed by subrule (1). (3) In considering whether to extend time under subrule (2), the court should take account of such factors as are relevant in the circumstances of the particular case, including the following: (a) any particular interest of the plaintiff in challenging the decision, (b) possible prejudice to other persons caused by the passage of time, if the relief were to be granted, including but not limited to prejudice to parties to the proceedings, (c) the time at which the plaintiff became or, by exercising reasonable diligence, should have become aware of the decision, (d) any relevant public interest. 1. The licence renewal decision was made in February 2017 and accordingly the 3 month period has long since expired. Mr Golden has not applied for an extension of time. 2. The defendants submitted that no extension of time would be granted in any event because there is no explanation for the delay and an extension would serve no useful purpose due to the nature of the decision of which review is sought. The trainer's licence for which Mr Golden applied would (if it had been granted) have expired on 30 June 2017 under the relevant rules (Racing NSW, Rules of Racing, Local Rules). Local Rule 51(5) provides: "(5) Unless otherwise determined all licences, permits and registrations expire on the 30th day of June each year, excepting Forepersons Stablehands & Bookmaker's Clerks [licences] which expire on the 31st day of October each year." 1. The defendants accordingly submit that, even if the decision could be impugned, there would be no utility in granting the relief sought. 2. I have previously held (in different circumstances) that the fact that a decision of which judicial review was sought related to an expired licence period did not preclude the grant of declaratory relief: Webber v Racing NSW [2019] NSWSC 46 at [61]-[70] (a case in which breach of procedural fairness was conceded). However, inutility is a more powerful consideration in circumstances where, as here, the application raises substantial questions of fact and is significantly out of time. Other relief claimed 1. The remaining relief claimed (prayers 6, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of the statement of claim) concerns the CHAPs scheme, which Mr Golden alleges has seen the embezzlement of hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds. The defendants submit that those claims are not underpinned by any private right able to be enforced by Mr Golden. 2. That is certainly the case in respect of prayers 6, 8, 11 and 12, which seek: "(6) A declaration that the decision of 2008 NSW Minister for Racing Kevin P Greene, [the second defendant] currently on the board of Racing NSW, on or about 12 September 2008 not to investigate RNSW public funds embezzlement, fraud facilitations and cover up was beyond power or otherwise invalid. … (8) A declaration that Mr Golden understands RNSW Deputy Chairman Anthony G Hodgson [the third defendant] to be a key player in the embezzlement of public funds, key player responsible for the engagement of inexperience [sic] non industry scapegoat Auditors to white wash public fund embezzlements, fraud facilitations, cover up & theft in the order of [$150m] one hundred & fifty million dollars. … (11) A declaration that Mr Vlandys [sic] and RNSW Board $150m+ embezzlement fraud facilitations cover up of public funds was beyond power or otherwise invalid. (12) A declaration that Mr Vlandys' [sic] protection of one fraudulent trainer, reported by Mr Golden, in the order of $50k minimum was beyond power or otherwise invalid." 1. None of those claims seeks to vindicate any private right of Mr Golden's. Even if they did, it would clearly not be open to the Court to grant relief in such terms. As to prayer 6, even if a decision in those terms was in fact made and is judicially reviewable (which may be doubted), it makes no sense to characterise a decision of a Minister not to investigate criminal conduct as being "invalid". As to prayer 8, the Court would not grant a declaration as to a party's state of mind. As to prayers 11 and 12, again, the declarations sought make no sense. 2. Prayer 13 is in a different category. It seeks an order in the following terms: "(13) A declaration that, for as long as Mr Hodgson, Mr Greene & other RNSW Board members continue to believe Mr Vlandys' [sic] mismanagement fraud facilitations and cover up of public fund was acceptable, Mr Golden requests the RNSW Board publicly: a. Acknowledge Mr Vlandys' [sic] public funds fraud facilitations and cover up. b. Publicly apologise to Mr Golden for Mr Vlandys [sic] and RNSW misfeasance. c. Reverse $80 scratching fee maliciously imposed on Mr Golden's horse. d. Reissue Mr Golden a trainers license, then, e. Be bound to pay Mr Golden's monthly, never less than five horse training fees at all times for remainder of Mr Golden's natural life, that Golden can afford horse training fee payments to a third party." 1. Although framed as an application for declaratory relief, it is clear enough that Mr Golden seeks by that paragraph also to obtain an award of damages for misfeasance in public office. The terms in which a declaration is sought are plainly misconceived and beyond the authority of the Court. However, even giving that aspect of the claim a benign interpretation and assuming it could be recast as a bare claim for damages for misfeasance in public office, the difficulty is that any such claim would represent an attempt to re-litigate the claim rejected by Adamson J relying on new evidence. As already explained, that would be an abuse of process. 2. I appreciate that part of the new evidence sought to be relied upon (the 2017 licence renewal decision) did not exist at the time of the earlier proceedings but the principal basis for the claim is the CHAPs evidence, all of which existed at the time of the earlier proceedings. 3. The defendants submit that Mr Golden's assertions in relation to the CHAPs scheme are baseless and speculative. They submit that the affidavits sworn by Mr Golden on 21 September 2018 and 9 October 2018 do not substantiate his claims. The defendants point in that context to the decisions of various investigatory bodies, including the Australian Tax Office and the Independent Commission Against Corruption, not to act on Mr Golden's complaints. 4. I do not think it is necessary or appropriate to attempt to determine on the present application whether Mr Golden's allegations about the CHAPs scheme can be proved. It is enough to conclude that those allegations do not give rise to any justiciable claim at the suit of Mr Golden. Irrelevant, unnecessary and scandalous allegations 1. The defendants' third objection is that the statement of claim otherwise contains allegations that are irrelevant, unnecessary or scandalous against the defendants and other persons who are not parties to the proceedings. 2. The defendants identify numerous people against whom Mr Golden makes allegations, including various former and current Commonwealth and NSW ministers, members of parliament and public servants; Racing NSW officials and board members; various NSW police officers; members of the legal profession; and various individuals in the horse racing industry. 3. Vast sections of the statement of claim satisfy that description and are liable to be struck out on that basis. Vague and imprecise pleadings 1. Finally, the defendants submit that the statement of claim contains allegations which are vague or imprecise and that the defendants cannot plead to such allegations. There is undoubted force in that complaint. Mr Braham SC, who appeared for the defendants, pointed to paragraph 49 by way of example: "2007 DAFF MP PETER McGAURAN self interest approval & CHAPS fraud facilitation of $235m public funds mismanagement paid un named, un trialled & un raced horses was illegitimate because correct horse budget numbers calculates less than $50m ie. CHAPS unnecessarily paid horses that [may] never qualify or attain income earning potential. Racing NSW was the only horse industry of four or five other horse racing organisations that a nameless faceless Minister approved CHAPS outside of guidelines, & please re read paragraphs 44 to 50 because RNSW confidence tricks are now ended." 1. Mr Braham also drew my attention to par 278, which states: "a prophet is only despised in his own country among his own relations and in his own house." Conclusion 1. I am satisfied that the whole of the statement of claim is liable to be struck out under r 14.28 on the grounds that it is an abuse of the process of the court or has a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceedings. I am further satisfied that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed and accordingly that the proceedings should be dismissed. 2. For those reasons, I make the following orders: 1. Strike out the statement of claim filed 28 August 2018. 2. Dismiss the proceedings with costs. ********** 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. Decision last updated: 17 October 2019