CASACIR

CASACIR Pty Ltd is the acronym for Crush Any Shit And Call It Rock, according to both its former directors, further, it has been sworn under oath and they have stated that they are happy with the name and acronym, and that they don’t care who knows it. With a purposefully selected name like that, one has to wonder what a purchaser (such as VicRoads, various councils and private citizens directly or through other companies) is actually getting when they buy any sort of “rock” from CASACIR.

Comments on this website relate to CASACIR as it was prior to its sale to new and unrelated owners, operators, directors, and shareholders. The sale took place on or about 14 February 2024. All references to CASACIR’s owners, operators, directors, and shareholders are those who held those and the related roles prior to the February 2024 sale. I don”t know about the ethics of the new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders, and I do not know about their conduct and nothing in this website can be deemed to be disparaging of them in any way.

For prospective purchasers, it may be helpful to know that CASACIR is a company that owned and operated: Granite Rock Quarry, Mt Speed Quarry, East Gippsland Asphalt and the Neerim North Quarry. It also operated the Jindivick quarry that was on land owned by council and another party. It also used to own and operate Trafalgar Concrete and Paynesville Concrete, but sold them sometime after April 2013.

At a community meeting that I organised in 2005, we asked what the CASACIR name meant and we were told that it related to one of their quarries where the quality of the rock had been high and they had been selling it for a “quality” price. We were also told that the quality of the rock had dropped but they were still charging the “quality” rock prices (I don’t know if that is true or not), and that the family had then decided “over a bottle of red one night” on the name CASACIR, being an acronym for: “Crush Any Shit And Call It Rock”. This was confirmed under oath at the Supreme Court by the following:

We originally started a company, we bought the Mount Speed quarry at Trafalgar and we floated a company which we owned between us and we called it Mount Speed Quarries. That operated for some years. We then had the opportunity to buy a concrete plant, two concrete plants, an asphalt plant and a quarry known as granite rock, and it was not practical to call the company then Mount Speed Quarries because it wasn’t just Mount Speed. My companies, Stabilime group, are and were major customers obviously of Casacir and the rock that we were producing or that [CASACIR and man X] on our behalf was producing out of Mount Speed was not the highest grade of stone. We weren’t buying necessarily VicRoads quality but it is a natural mudstone deposit and when you crush it, some parts of it tend to be softer than a basalt or a granite rock quarry and some of my engineers had some disputes with [CASACIR and man X] over the quality and it became known affectionately in our company as mount mud…

He also admitted under oath that:

[S]ome of my engineers had some disputes with [man X] over the quality[1]

Jack Kraan confirmed that CASACIR uses the lower quality for roads when he wrote in his planning report[2] and witness statement[3], as fact, respectively that [emphasis mine]:

3.3 The lower class products produced from this source will be used predominantly for road construction and maintenance, rebuilding of road shoulders ….

4.3 The lower class products produced from this quarry will be predominantly used for road construction and maintenance, rebuilding of road shoulders …. 


We can see from this that CASACIR tried to sell, and has sold, lower standard material for roads (for whatever price). A simple example of what can only be termed a “fraudulent representation” in CASACIR’s own website[4]where it states that it provides “the highest quality material”, but …

It should also be noted that the acronym for CASACIR was also verbally confirmed at the 2008 tribunal hearings by Kraan, and it must also be noted that it was confirmed at the Supreme Court by both man X, man Y and also by their barrister at the time, Anthony Southall QC. Even Southall told the court as fact that:

It’s common ground amongst people in the industries in Gippsland that Casacir stands for the somewhat crude express, “crush any shit and call it rock”[5]. 


Our problems commenced when CASACIR wanted to commence and operate a quarry at Neerim North, a small and (previous to the commencement of CASACIR at the site) peaceful and lovely place some 40km north of Warragul.

The property CASACIR wanted to quarry was the property to the immediate north of our property and was noted on CASACIR’s documents to be only 140m to the north of our house – yet this was deemed not too close in spite of the recommended distance being 500m.

At the 2005 community meeting man X also undertook that he and man Y would be willing to buy properties from any neighbours who wanted to sell, and claimed any such purchase by them would be at market value as assessed by a qualified valuer, and that the assessment would be on a “without-a-quarry” basis. However, even though a number of neighbours subsequently wanted to sell, this undertaking has proven to be entirely fraudulent and man X and man Y were not willing to follow through with any such purchases.

CASACIR hired Bell Cochrane & Associates (now BCA Consulting (“BCA”)) to prepare a work plan for submissions to the then DPI for assessment and approval – this work plan contained much in the way of either deliberate or accidental errors – I don’t know which. I also don’t know, and would not hazard a guess, as to where their erroneous information came from: the information could have come from CASACIR itself, from man X, or from Kraan on there behalf, or …. In amongst the myriad of false claims and errors, were two outstanding and totally implausible claims: (1) that one of the waterways flowed into a dam on the property, thereby effectively unequivocally stating that the waterway ran up hill (which it would have had to do in order to flow into the dam), and (2) that there would be absolutely no land disturbance in an area where they intended to dig a square dam of approximately 40m x 20m (a bit hard to dig a dam without disturbing the land, I would have thought). Needless to say, once the above false claims were pointed out, theirs became the first (and I understand, only) work plan to ever be unendorsed in Victoria. Most of the other false claims and errors remained as fact in the new work plan in spite of being provably false.

Having been granted the right to a permit by the tribunal, CASACIR made changes to the documentation for the proposed quarry when it produced its third work plan (i.e. it contained matters not addressed at the 2008 tribunal hearings). This iteration and its attachments were subsequently endorsed by council as part of the permit, and approved by DPI as the basis of the work authority. This work plan and associated attachments also contained conflicting, inaccurate, contradictory, inconsistent information; obfuscations; lack of substantiation of claims; lack and/or insufficient supply of information; failures, and vagueness of its claims and denials; outright lies and fraudulent misrepresentations…(most of them being the same or similar ones as contained in the first two work plans, in other words: same old, same old,…) – I have made these claims many times (including at the tribunal) and it should be noted that CASACIR has never disputed it!!

CASACIR told the tribunal that it would undertake certain actions, so the tribunal granted it the planning permit requested. Instead of taking the issues identified by myself and many other objectors seriously, or even into consideration, the tribunal sought to resolve the issues by conditions, as is, sadly, somewhat typical.

When comparing the verbal and written  and undertakings to the reality, the information provided by CASACIR was, at least in part, an attempt to minimise both responsibilities and impacts and to obfuscate facts, as well as to hide or minimise their undertakings and obligations. One of the many such examples is that CASACIR undertook at the 2008 tribunal to use a specific silenced drill (and even produced the brochure to convince the members that it was serious in its undertaking). Even though their specialist stated in his evidence that this drill was currently available and had been available in Australia for some time, and even though CASACIR’s own Environmental Management Plan (a binding part of its permit and work authority documents) stated that all drilling would be performed with the silenced drill, and even though the permit demanded that the silenced drill be used for all drilling, CASACIR used an entirely unsilenced drill for many months and even after that frequently used a drill with only a thin flimsy cover over part of the drill rather than the fully enclosed silenced drill undertaken to be used.

CASACIR has made many other undertakings and failed to meet a number of them – always with excuses, even when there seems to be no validity to their excuses.

Years ago there was great debate about who had the most rights: the people who smoked and whether they could do it where and when they wanted, countered with those who wanted to have fresh air with no cigarette smoke. Subsequently legislation decided the matter in favour of those who did not want cigarette smoke thrust upon them. The situation with the quarry was not such a debate. There was no debate as to whether CASACIR had the right to emit dust, noise, drainage … they did not – legislation had already been put in place that clearly and absolutely specified the protections against such emissions. Therefore, this was also not a case where there could have been any doubt that our rights were already enshrined in legislation. It was the same with noise and water issues.

So, it was legislated that CASACIR did not have the right to impact us or anyone to the extent or in the way they were doing. Yet, they obviously felt they had the right to do so, regardless of legislation, and in spite of the legal requirement to operate within certain guidelines and in accordance with legislation, their work plan, planning permit, work authority and their own undertakings not to impact us or others in any detrimental manner. They also called me vexatious for taking action to try to restore our pre-existing legislated rights that they unlawfully took from us, and they gained huge costs from us because we took that action and those that embodied CASACIR (man X and man Y) repeatedly lied and twisted facts, including under oath (man Y did so by approving of the false testimony in 2 affidavits and on oath verbally (all of which man Y admits to having approved and authorised)). Further, there has never been any sign of any remorse for any of it, and there has certainly never been any apology.

CASACIR has shown that it was willing to, without necessarily first obtaining the required permits and/or licences, perform works, activities and operations making such works, activities and operations both unauthorised and unlawful – I can say this because it did so on a number of occasions. CASACIR showed that it was happy to not apply for a permit and commence and complete works that required a permit prior to such activities commencing, and to leave works, activities and operations unlawful (or even illegal) and unauthorised in order to avoid the need for community consultation. I can say that because it did so (e.g. the unlawful and unauthorised (illegal) diversion of Kookaburra Creek). It also took and used water without a permit in spite of one being required prior to any such activity.

In spite of the legal requirement to do so, CASACIR has shown that it will not provide (in some cases – at all, and in other cases – in a timely manner), inter alia:

  • accurate plans (condition 1 of their permit),
  • locations and scales and schedules (condition 1ii),
  • plans and specifications (conditions 31 & 47),
  • contingency plan (conditions 40 & 54iii),
  • designs (condition 46ii),
  • identification of all impacted parties and mitigation or compensation for those parties (conditions 54 (1)-(ii)),
  • the need to obtain licences (condition 54(iv),
  • contour drain section and level designs (condition 58iv),
  • community consultation (condition 59).

CASACIR revealed that a signed and binding terms of settlement agreement made at the tribunal meant nothing and that it would not fulfill any of the terms in the short-term without being threatened with further legal action (I can say this because it happened), and that it never intended to comply with it at all in the long-term – making it a case of fraud. It further revealed a blatant disregard for conditions and their own undertakings given that, although they agreed to never again interfere with the flow of Kookaburra Creek, they fully intended to permanently remove the flow (as well as the catchment area, aquifers and spring permanently). Their proposal was to “replace” what had been clean clear spring water before CASACIR arrived, with polluted quarry wastewater and drainage! And this was in spite of not legally being allowed to do so and in spite of our repeated and adamant objections! As said, CASACIR and its directors, man X and man Y, committed fraud by signing, and/or authorising the signing of, the agreement because they didn’t comply with it in the short-term (until further legal action was threatened), and they absolutely knew they were never going to comply with it in the long-term  (the life of their quarry depended on not complying with the agreement) – making the signing of the agreement a fraud, hoax and a sham, and they only signed it to get out of the legal action that was to commence the next day.

I contend that CASACIR treated the tribunal with (inter alia):

  • with blatant disrespect as to facts:
    • it provided misleading and inaccurate information on a number of occasions and in many documents, and verbally during hearings (as shown by the various transcript pages), and
    • it provided sworn affidavits that misled the tribunal because the affidavits contained much in the way of inaccurate and falsely sworn claims, and
    • it provided sworn testimony that effectively misled the tribunal because much of what was sworn was inaccurate and falsely sworn information (as shown by the various transcript pages).
  • with disregard as to orders:
    • in spite of their own undertaking and the requirement of the tribunal for documentation to be filed and served by certain dates, it was almost always provided days, weeks or even months later than the dates specified. In one case there had to be a non-compliance hearing in order to eventually get the documents at all!
    • in relation to the orders governing their permit conditions.
  • with disregard as to instructions and directions:
    • in spite of the strict requirement for the site visit of the 2008 hearing, that the CASACIR representative (man X) remain silent and that if there was to be any requirement for information that Graeme Peake, its then barrister, was to supply that information – but man X would not be quiet and Peake refused to tell him to be quiet,
    • in spite of being told to discuss dates with me for a hearing, it refused to do so.

In August 2009 CASACIR commenced both construction and operations at the site. Commencement of operations at that time was in breach of the conditions that the southern bund be constructed prior to operations being commenced.

Although the orders were very clear that any part of the process of extracting, drilling, moving, processing (including but not limited to rock crushing and breaking) and transporting rock was part of the operations or use activities, CASACIR determined otherwise. The members had clearly stated that the determination that operations and use was not to be limited to when product went out the gate [emphasis mine]:

[The acoustic specialist]’s suggestion was that the construction period should be activity on site that does not involve product going out the gate. We are of the view that the condition should be more specific and refer to ‘any activities that are not part of the process of extracting, drilling, moving, processing (including but not limited to rock crushing or breaking) and transporting rock’.

How can justice be done when conditions are acted upon contrary to a clear-reading of them.

We took CASACIR to the tribunal: it was the primary respondent at VCAT in 2009 and 2010. This included in the enforcement proceeding – this action was taken because CASACIR had failed to comply with a number of conditions. During the proceedings, CASACIR:

  • lied under oath;
  • authorised fraudulent submissions, addresses and documents;
  • used significant hearsay as truth;
  • failed to disclose documents in time for preparation, filing and/or serving (thereby causing great surprise),
  • used “in-confidence” and “without prejudice” letters without prior discussion or permission in order to sway the members from looking at what CASACIR had really done;
  • authorised the failures to comply with permit and work authority conditions, and perpetrated the illegal and unauthorised removal of the flow of water from my related party’s land. It further authorised further fraudulent misrepresentations over those matters, and it colluded, collaborated and conspired with others to provide false representations that would and did sway the members – there were considerable erroneous claims and denials made on its behalf as absolute fact, including by Southall during the appeal on costs – and it succeeded with its plan by (1) gaining in excess of $100,000 in costs and (2) with the results reverberating though the subsequent court cases.

I and my related parties at VCAT in 2009 and 2010 filed and served a large document detailing;

  • CASACIR’s breaches of its planning permit and work authority conditions;
  • photos of some of those breaches;
  • freedom of information releases proving some of those breaches, and
  • other relevant information.

In relation to both VCAT and the court, CASACIR created situations of intimidation and it authorised defamatory remarks on its behalf.

In court, it was part of the collusion, collaboration and conspiracy to deliberately delay in finalising the statement of claim[6] containing its significant, but fraudulent, claims;

It was part of the collusion, collaboration and conspiracy in failing to particularise the words fraudulently claimed to be false, injurious, misleading and/or deceptive, and to use its own deliberate delay against me.

It colluded, collaborated and conspired with others to provide other prolific false misrepresentations that would sway the court – there were considerable erroneous claims and denials made on its behalf as absolute fact before the court and, in spite of its purported withdrawal, and in spite of it not qualifying as part of the defamation case, it authorised being brought into the defamation case[7] no less than 100 times.

In fact, CASACIR and its claims were part of an abuse of the court’s processes in that it was never going to actually be a party to the court action and it was fully aware that its claims were laughably ludicrous. It was only an overt part of the original proceedings so that it could add its weigh to bully and intimidate me into removing my former website. Once they had succeeded in intimidating and bullying me into removing my website, CASACIR overtly withdrew (but covertly continued in the action against me).

CASACIR was a party at the time of many of the decisions being made in relation to its participation of its considerable but erroneous claims and denials. Such participation is identified in the bill of costs dated March 2017[8] by way of participation of man X and man Y on its behalf.

Some of the CASACIR erroneous claims and denials[9] presented to the court in documents as truth are as follows:

  • that the website publications about it were at all relevant times false and could have been verified by reasonable steps to establish the truth[10]– which was a blatantly fraudulent claim given that it noted that the website contained the very pictures that proved the website to be true and factual;
  • that at no time, in any document, public statement, or evidence before any body, had CASACIR, nor any representatives made any acknowledgement that CASACIR had breached its planning conditions and that any such allegation was untrue – when they most certainly had and I am happy to prove it to anyone who wants to know;
  • that any statement made on behalf of CASACIR that there was a fixed spray over the crushers at its quarry operation was true and correct, and that there are, and at all relevant times have been, fixed sprays erected and in operation over crushers at its quarry operation since its commencement – when they were not according to the DPI personnel and photos;
  • that it had always cared and been concerned with any dust arising from its quarry operation and that no notices had been issued to CASACIR regarding any contravention of permissible dust levels, and that it had not conducted its quarry operations in such a way as to result in a significant decrease in the air quality – when it was not concerned at all and dust had exited the site in such amounts that DPI had identified it a number of times, and had issued at least one s110 enforcement Notice served on it;
  • that the allegations that CASACIR provided inaccurate information to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority concerning its blasting operation was untrue and without basis, that on the morning of 28 April 2011, a light airplane carrying me circled the quarry seriously interrupting and delaying the conduct and timing of the scheduled blasting operation on that morning, and also created a potentially dangerous situation for the airplane and its occupants – when to make this claim either means that by me flying overhead at that time saved the lives of at least 6 people who were on or near the blast zone, or it was further lies, yet again;
  • that it had been environmentally responsible in its operation – but its claims mean that it believes it to be environmentally responsible to pollute ground and surface water; to unlawfully divert water from others’ properties in spite of not being legally able to do so and in spite of ardent objections; to rip out a monitoring bore without decommissioning it; to emit serious amounts of dust and air pollutants without a permit to do so; and so on;
  • that it had intended, and continued to intend, to meet its performance standards for the quarry land and its quarry operation (on it’s own land) – when it was certainly using other’s land for buffers and at least 2 of its own specialists acknowledged that it was doing so;
  • that it had complied with requirements of the Mineral Resource (Sustainable Resource) Act 1990 in respect of its quarry operation, as it had undergone monitoring by the DPI, with no contravention notices issued – when it had actually had two known s110 contravention Notices served on it months prior to making the fraudulent claim (for blasting and dust infringements and breaches); and that as recently as September 2011, CASACIR had not issued any contravention or infringement notices as a result of inspections – when the facts are that:

1. it had actually been served with a Notice in relation to blasting contraventions 18 months prior to its first such fraudulent claim, 21 months before making the fraudulent claim the 2nd time, and 22 months before making the fraudulent claim the 3rd time; and

2. It had actually been served with a Notice for dust contraventions 3 months prior to its first such fraudulent claim, 5 months before making the fraudulent claim the 2nd time, and 6 months before making the fraudulent claim the 3rd time.

  • that it didn’t have an arrogant disregard for the people who live in the area of the quarry – when it certainly exhibited that attitude by taking others’ water without permission to do so (and against the law); by polluting the air quality frequently; by its drivers driving all over the roads (including over double lines around blind corners and over hills); by releasing drainage into Kookaburra Creek in spite of promising to retain and re-use it on site;  by signing terms of agreement and breaching it until further legal action was threatened (and even then intending to permanently break the agreement in the long-term); by failing to meet the demands of  community requests and failure to hold the requisite number of consultation meetings;
  • that it had not had issued against it, or served upon it, a notice by the then DPI for failure to meet blasting requirements for its quarry operation, and no such notice had ever been produced to CASACIR by the then DPI – when it certainly did have a s110 Notice served on it for failures in blasting;
  • that it did not have a history of non-compliance with planning and/or work plan or permit conditions – when it took and used water without a licence (required by conditions as well as by law); it illegally diverted Kookaburra Creek (in breach of legislation and its conditions); it refused to use the silenced drill it undertook to use and it was part of its conditions to use; it refused to provide the names of parties impacted by the proposed quarrying of the springs or to provide the required compensation to them; that it did not monitor at the required dwellings; and so on;
  • that there had have never been any enforcement proceedings issued against it in respect of its operations at its Jindivick quarry, but that relevant authority requirements imposed on the CASACIR Jindivick quarry were in fact imposed as a direct consequence of the destruction of fencing on that land during the Black Saturday bushfires of 7 February 2009, and that repairs to that fencing took place within one month of those bushfires – the claim about the fire was true, but it lied about when the fencing was done: as of 12 May 2009 (3 months after the fires[11]), the fences were still down and there was no commencement of either clean up or replacement at that time;
  • that the work plan for its Neerim North quarry operation contained no indication, admission or evidence that subsurface water from the quarry would flow into waterways – when the first 3 iterations of their work plan each clearly specified that:

2.5  The stored water maintained a fairly constant level, with ground water escaping into fractures in the ground …it appears that any sub surface water originating from the north of the road (ie within the proposed quarry development area) flows along permeable horizons towards the south trending [Kookaburra Creek].

  • that the website had stopped it from obtaining a permit for an office block and weighbridge – when it had held the permit for 6 weeks when it first made the fraudulent claim;
  • that my former website had cost it millions – when it had not cost them anything, and it dropped the claims because it could not substantiate them. This is particularly so given that the CASACIR company is a multi-million dollar company, and the Neerim North property alone contains $165m in resources;
  • that it was false to assert that CASACIR had no apparent care or concern that three bores on its quarry land could not be properly or adequately monitored – when the bores were each placed in locations that were subject to pollution, being damaged and/or were otherwise useless, and one was ripped out without having been decommissioned;
  • that it had not been in contravention of its work plan by selling overburden and that there was nothing in the work plan which prohibited the sale of overburden created as part of its quarry operations – this is fraudulent given that it is a twist on what was actually said in the website. Further, the website merely pointed out that CASACIR’s own work plan stated that there was not enough overburden for rehabilitation, yet they continued to sell it regardless [emphasis mine]:

6.4 The site does not generate enough overburden to completely rehabilitate all quarry faces as described above. Overburden may be supplemented with quarry waste and other suitable material, however it is still unlikely there will be sufficient material to completely cover all the exposed quarry faces.

  • that all information provided by CASACIR at community meetings had been true and correct and that CASACIR had not deceived the public – when it certainly was not true and the community had indeed been repeatedly duped as to the conditions and compliance (or, I should say, the lack of compliance);
  • neither it or its representatives had provided provably incorrect sworn information to VCAT – this is blatantly false because, on behalf of CASACIR, man X, with man Y’s admitted approval, lied under oath about plantings, fencing, dust, noise, drills, roads, etc;
  • that its representatives at all material times reviewed carefully the affidavits which they swore (on behalf of CASACIR) in the VCAT proceedings, were careful in giving oral evidence, and were justified in making statements that they made to VCAT – but the truth is that the same “they” repeatedly and deliberately lied under oath on CASACIR’s behalf and with its approval;
  • that the information which formed the basis of CASACIR’s evidence at the VCAT proceedings (in both written and verbal form) had been checked carefully with the relevant local and State government authorities at appropriate times) – but the regulatory authorities absolutely denied it under oath or affirmation;
  • that it was incorrect to allege that it had failed to comply with sworn testimony, conditions and undertakings – when it absolutely and provably had done so; and
  • that it was incorrect to allege that CASACIR had interpreted orders made by VCAT how it wanted to interpret them rather than how they should be interpreted and that all orders made by VCAT were implemented and followed – when there had been a non-compliance hearing on 27 July 2010 for their continued non-compliance, and when it was clarified in court that CASACIR had not followed the orders and it has been further clarified that this is conduct that has continued into and through court.

Since CASACIR was purportedly removed from the claim, but covertly retained, and since CASACIR and man X and man Y all maintained that their claims were valid[12], it is important to see that what CASACIR was claiming to the court as true and factual, was grossly false and used to abuse the court’s processes and pervert the course of justice – and why it certainly could not stay as a viable plaintiff.

CASACIR can’t really claim that it was actually withdrawn given that its legal team[13] stated that:

Simply because these [injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct] claims were discontinued does not mean that they had no proper basis.[14]

In other words, those [injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct] issues will always be on the table.[15].

In other words, it had fraudulently claimed that the purportedly discarded claims were true – this was in spite of Southall having told the court as fact that the removal was because [emphasis mine]:

[The injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive claims] were deleted from the claim for various reasons. …Various legal reasons, quite complex legal reasons, some months ago, late last year[16].

Now, of course issues of proof in injurious falsehood as opposed to defamation are quite different. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove the falsehoods or to prove the facts underlying the falsehoods in the second cause of action. And, of course, the problems or the issues of proof in M and D conduct are different again but nevertheless involve an onus on the plaintiff to prove its case quite properly[17].

In relation to the removal of the claims and denials, man X testified as fact as follows [emphasis Mine]:

Me: So we have established that you had the other causes of action, the injurious falsehood and the misleading and deceptive conduct that you discontinued and threw away. Can you tell me why you did that? …

Man X: You are asking me why we withdrew those other claims? … On advice from the – originally, the whole idea of being here today was to have the matter of our injuries dealt with and this ongoing – as it says there game, everything is a game, we never seem to win anywhere. We have always done something but you’ve had to bring it to our attention and everybody’s attention again. Under legal opinion those other two cases were dropped because it would have incurred trying to prove that you had interrupted our business and there were other legal sides that we were – – – … For legal advice, we dropped those claims[18].

And man Y testified as fact that:

Me: How did you feel about throwing away three-quarters of your claims with regard to the discontinuation and throwing away of the injurious falsehood … and the deceptive and misleading conduct and withdrawing Casacir, how did you feel? Disappointed, angry, hurt?

Man Y: I felt the need that if you pay for a good Queen’s counsel and he gives you good advice and you don’t take it, then I think you are foolish. We took his advice[19].

This shows that the reasons for removing CASACIR and all its[20] claims for injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct claims were not to simplify the case or narrow the issues at all – and that any such claims were erroneous. The knowledge that none of them could make good those claims meant that they were always going to keep the claims and CASACIR covertly alive in the defamation case [emphasis Mine]:

It’s quite a substantial quarry operation and that’s fundamental in the [defamation] cause of action[21].

The claims and denials made by CASACIR reveals the extraordinary lengths that it will go to in order to try to intimidate and harass me. For it to assert that what it claimed and denied was true showed astonishing vindictiveness, audacity and effrontery.

CASACIR was covertly retained at court in spite of being overtly withdrawn[22], and misled and deceived the court by having significantly, repeatedly, and knowingly lied in documents by nastily, deceitfully and dishonestly claiming untruthful and dishonest matters as irrefutable truth and fact. CASACIR was, of course, a focal and fundamental part of the process given that, for example:

  • proceedings were initiated by it;
  • the proceedings were fully supported by it;
  • it gave instructions in regard to the activities of the legal team;
  • Southall admitted that it was fundamental to the defamation case;
  • it permitted the erroneous claims made on its behalf variously at court, and before that at VCAT;
  • it assisted in the false use and production of material and information;
  • it failed to correct the many erroneous claims and denials and thereby gave its approval and permission for such conduct;
  • it paid the salaries of both man X and man Y, each at the admitted rate of $350 per hour[23];
  • it paid enormous accounts rendered for the work done by various other co-conspirators[24], thereby approving of the work (including the fraudulent work) done on its behalf.

CASACIR caused significant problems for neighbours, notably me (and my related parties). This included, but was certainly not limited to:

  • surface water issues:
    • the pollution of the waterway and then the use of that polluted level as the “control” level for future assessments;
    • the unlawful and unauthorised (illegal) removal of the flow of water from Kookaburra Creek from my related party’s property;
    • the fraudulent claims, including denials that they had even impacted the flow;
    • the failure to comply with signed and official terms of settlement in relation to the restoration of the flow until after threats of further legal action; and
    • the stated intention to deliberately and permanently continue to break the binding terms of settlement agreement, and to do so without discussion, permission or debate, and in the face of my and my related party’s strong opposition;
  • drainage issues:
    • allowing drainage run-off[25], and allowing it to run into Kookaburra Creek (thereby impacting our property), and the denial that it had done so;
    • allowing silt and quarry wastewater to drain offsite and to run into Kookaburra Creek, and the denial that it had done so; and
    • the stated deliberate stated intention to replace the flow of spring water of Kookaburra Creek with quarry wastewater and drainage; and to do so without discussion, permission or debate, and in the face of the strong opposition of me and my related parties;
  • air quality issues:
    • allowing dust in significant amounts on frequent occasions to leave the site unlawfully;
    • not taking air quality readings for a full year prior to commencing works (a legal requirement);
    • allowing themselves up to double the “allowable” dust offsite;
    • not installing the required dust monitors in a timely manner, and not ensuring that they were operational;
  • noise issues:
    • frequently exceeding the allowable limits;
    • not using the silenced drill they undertook to use at all times, and to deceive VCAT regarding this; and
    • not using broadband smart beepers at all times which were required;
  • safety issues:
    • allowing quarry truck drivers to frequently drive over hills and around blind bends significantly and frequently on the wrong side of the road;
    • allowing its blasting contractor (Orica), according to CASACIR, to be ready to blast while people are on the very benches to be blasted, and machinery and vehicles are in the close proximity[26];
    • not having or maintaining the bench widths undertaken in its work plan and planning report, as fact; and
    • not maintaining the public roads it was responsible for, but to allow the roads to degrade to a dangerous condition; and
  • work on public holidays in breach of planning permit conditions;
  • failing to hold the required number of community meetings and giving fraudulent information to the community.

That is just a small part of CASACIR’s appalling and impacting conduct that has affected me, my related parties and, in some cases, the general community.

CASACIR was a crucial part of the process and it was as culpable as each of its representatives (including but not limited to man X and man Y), especially given that it contributed and approved false information. In addition it deliberately, repeatedly, corporately and knowingly broke the law, and colluded, collaborated and conspired with the others to perpetrate fraud upon me and the court and pervert the course of justice.

Further, in spite of it being a quarry with dangerous drops from benches, the site is still not secure in many locations.

Of course, if CASACIR actually believe that it was being honest at all times, and that it was actually complying with legislation, the planning scheme, its permits, its work plan, its work authority and its other documents and other legislation, then it may have been so blinkered that it was unable to see that: *knowingly saying things that are not true (such as declaring it had done things that it had not and that it had not done things it had) was tantamount to lying, and *knowingly swearing under oath to things that were not true (such as declaring they had done things that it had not and not done things it had) was tantamount to lying, and *by not doing what it repeatedly said it would was tantamount to being misleading and deceptive, and *by doing what they repeatedly said they would not do was also tantamount to being misleading and deceptive, and *by failing to meet the requirements of the planning scheme is was failing to meet the requirements of its planning permit and work authority, and the planning scheme, and therefore should not have either a planning permit or work authority, and *by failing to meet the requirements of legislation it was acting unlawfully and in an unauthorised manner.

If it could see that it was so remiss, then why was it continuing with blatant disregard? If, on the other hand, it really could not see the results of its actions, then one could question whether it should be operating any quarry.

Who can say why CASACIR was so willing to do what it has done? Could it perhaps it have something to do with the level of ethics of those representing it (just a supposition and personal opinion, not a statement of fact)? Perhaps it was because there have been no repercussions for such appalling conduct? I don’t know. What I do know is that when such appalling conduct is rewarded, there is certainly no reason for a change of conduct.

But then, perhaps the name of the company and the history behind it (as provided by CASACIR’s directors to us and others) may provide us with some insight to why all these things have happened.

From everything that has happened, it seems to me that CASACIR and the authorities have what could be perceived as an arrogant disregard for the people who live in this area, and it appears that all else is put aside in deference to “might is right”. This is, it seems, the undeclared motto of the various authorities, including the tribunal – particularly when clear breaches are ignored and excused and legislation is blatantly ignored.

The Neerim North residents had, and have, a right to live without the detrimental impacts of the quarry having been forced up on them.

One has to ask: why even bother having a planning scheme? Who is it that is going against the planning scheme for this area: CASACIR or the residents(?) – answer: CASACIR and the authorities!

It is very strange the slant that has been put on things. For instance, CASACIR has claimed that I was the person who objected to the grant of a permit for CASACIR to operate a quarry – I was merely one of 28! Further, an application by CASACIR against conditions implemented by council was also attributed to me!! I am blamed for everything they don’t want to admit to, including for *revealing the conditions that CASACIR was and is in breach of, *revealing what CASACIR said it would not do but has, and by *revealing what CASACIR has undertaken to do, but has not done. If undertakings were complied with, and if the work plan, planning permit and work authority were complied with, and if legislation was complied with – then I wouldn’t have anything to write about CASACIR, and would just be focusing on the authorities and other issues, just to keep others aware of what they too could expect in a similar situation. So, who’s really to blame – do you blame those not complying or the one refusing to hide it? To me it’s like those who kick and scream because they got a fine for speeding, and claim that the authorities are just revenue raising – if they didn’t speed then they would not get caught, if they were not caught then they would not get a fine, and if they did not get a fine then they would not be putting money into the so-called “revenue raising” coffers. Please, give credit (or blame) where it is due.

Along with all that, there are the existing breaches (for example: still no plantings in a number of locations, site still not properly identified, site still not secure, lack of attempts to stop erosion from the south-west bund and hard-stand area, drainage still discharging off-site, more product stored in locations they were not allowed to store it, Neerim North Road was not repaired or maintained for many years, and hs only now (sometime in the past 2 years (2020 or 2021) been remedied, etc). Further, there is still no “rock spalls drain across the quarry entrance road” in spite of council having been given the clear understanding that it already existed. Well, absolutely no surprises in any of that!

Regardless, and needless to say, the waterway/watercourse legally known as “Kookaburra Creek” exists and we relied upon its flow. Having clarified that, we absolutely did not permit, allow, consent to, or in any way authorise: *any discharge or release of drainage and/or wastewater into or through Kookaburra Creek and/or our property from any location or for any reason; *any “provision” of so called “replacement flow” into Kookaburra Creek and/or our property from any location or for any reason; *any removal of or any impact upon any part of the spring of Kookaburra Creek in any location or for any reason; or *any removal of or any impact upon any part of the catchment of Kookaburra Creek and/or the aquifers that feed it in any location or for any reason. I don’t know how CASACIR was intending to get past all that unless they intended to perform further illegal and unauthorised activities.

The 2008 tribunal did make it abundantly clear that unless things were sorted out before commencement of the quarry, then CASACIR would be taking a risk of being closed down because of it’s inability to obtain the legislated requirements (amongst other things). CASACIR took a calculated risk and that was its choice to do so. They did so in the firm  conviction that they would be able to force me out so that I could not officially object and stop the quarry.

Back in November 2009 I went on-site to find out why CASACIR were operating on a public holiday when it was very clear in the planning permit and work authority that they are not to do so (another breach). I discovered that the usual employees were not on site and that employees had been brought in from CASACIR’s Granite Rock quarry at Bairnsdale. Therefore, how could they justify their stated claim that they did not know that it was a public holiday in the area?? Later the explanation was put forward that, under the guise of the employees’ work conditions, that employees can change the dates they work and work on a public holiday and take a different day off if they like. However, to do so is to operate without complying with the planning permit – but that is typical of the problems we had and the stress and anxiety we suffered by their ignoring of the conditions that they legally had to comply with, but often didn’t! I see that regardless of a condition stating that something can or can’t be done, based on experience, they see that it does not mean that the condition has to be taken literally (otherwise we would not have had to take enforcement action!)

Further, in a publicly available document, CASACIR stated “…the police were called in to remove [me] from Casacir’s quarry premises”. There are a number of issues here: (1) that is a totally false and misleading statement, (2) I have never been asked to leave the quarry premises by the police or by anyone else, (3) I have only attended the site for legitimate purposes (*to ask if they had a Works on Waterway permit for the otherwise illegal work they had already performed on Kookaburra Creek – they did not have a permit, making the works both unlawful and unauthorised (i.e. illegal), *to deliver an alteration to the minutes of meeting, and *to ask why they were working on a public holiday), and (4) I have neither been removed, nor had anyone tried to remove me, from the quarry premises – ever! In addition, CASACIR has publicly accused me of trespass and has publicly said that the [purported] trespass was logged with the police. Very strange because (1) I have not trespassed on the site, and (2) the police say they have no record of any such claim by CASACIR or any of its representatives (or anyone else)!

Isn’t it strange that CASACIR objects to me telling things as they are (and I have a lot of proof of what I have said) and says I am defaming them, acting in a manner that is causing them injury through falsehood and am guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct by revealing things that they don’t want revealed, yet they broadcast the acronym and background to the name CASACIR (self-defamatory), and consider it right and proper to cause me great injury through things they have stated about me that have no basis in fact or truth, and to claim damages from me for doing so!

They will no doubt take umbrage at the fact that I have used what has happened at the Neerim North quarry as an example of what others could be up against if they are, or who could possibly be, in a like situation. Regardless of non-compliance, the truth, in all its ugliness, will be revealed because they would have the uphill battle of proving that what I have said is false, misleading, deceptive, or injurious. They will need more than good luck with all, or any, of that. They have claimed that the CASACIR business and the land the quarry is on have both become unsaleable, or at best saleable for only a nominal amount. How extraordinary when there is an acknowledged after-costs $165m worth of resource in the property), let alone the other CASACIR businesses. Still, a look at the books would clear that up pronto.

I have been placed in the position, by CASACIR and its directors (and others), requiring the need to fight for our rights because no-one else will – but we don’t lose hope that truth and justice will eventually win out in the end.

There is also the problem of provably inaccurate information being provided by CASACIR: there is such a history of inaccurate information being produced and it is not just my opinion. Just for example (and there are many examples), Peter McWhinney of council made such statements as “There are disparities in [the] information provided”, “The objections are quite correct as the detail of the application reports is flawed in a number of places. This does not build confidence in the assertions of compliance with guidelines”, “The use of modelling is flawed and the results would be expected not to be exactly reflected by reality …”, “The plethora of errors and inconsistencies in the various reports forming the application pointed to by the objectors seems overwhelming”, “Numerous examples of errors and inconsistencies in the application reports and plans, lack of perceived pertinent details, changes of details between the reports etc are cited. It is alleged this is a combination of incompetence and deliberate attempt to misinform on the real impact of the proposal” and “The objections emphatically … point to the errors and inconsistencies in the application as evidence that the technical basis of the application is seriously flawed and the proposal should be rejected.” He further informed me personally that information provided by CASACIR raised more questions than it answered. Sadly, not much changed from that time.

[1]   T247:5-6

[2]   His planning report was the basis of CASACIR’s planning application and is endorsed as part of the planning permit.

[3]   Filed with the 2008 tribunal

[4]   www.casacir.com.au

[5]   T98:28-31

[6]   See items 12 to 51 of the bill of costs dated March 2017.

[7]   In spite of not being eligible to be part of the defamation case T14:27–T15:5 (Southall speaking): “Yes, and Casacir was a plaintiff and Casacir  was a plaintiff because of the M and D conduct and the injurious falsehood allegations. It was decided for the reasons I mentioned to you earlier that we would no longer proceed with that and we had the leave of the court but, therefore, Casacir had to fall away because section 9, I think it’s the 2005 Defamation Act, says a company of more than 10 employees cannot bring an action or maintain an action for defamation and Casacir does have that with all its quarry workers.”

[8]   For example, at items 3, 13, 28, 36, 76, 109, 115, 117, 124, 135, 142, 145, 148, 150, 163, 174, 175, 177-180, 182, 215, 218, 256-267, 274, 280, 281, 283, 289.

[9]   It is to be noted that CASACIR did not seek further and better particulars on any of these issues.

[10]  I had verified the truth by photographs and freedom of information results. Many of the photographs were on the website and the FOI results were available to view upon request – but no such request was made.

[11]  I am not sure how much later the fences went up, but it certainly defies the fraudulent claim of onemonth

[12]  Their submissions in relation to the s29 application against them, at paragraph 27: “Simply because these claims were discontinued does not mean that they had no proper basis” – clearly indicating that they were true and accurate claims and denials

[13]  By this time Spencer had replaced Kaye as the junior barrister, although Kaye still participated on an ad hoc basis.

[14]  Outline of Submissions dated 9 July 2015 at paragraph 27 (prepared by KSA, Smith, and possibly Kraan; filed and served by KSA and Smith; settled by Southall; and approved by the plaintiffs).

[15]  T3:14-22 (23 November 2012)

[16]  T214:30–T215:4

[17]  T3:14-22 (23 November 2012)

[18]  T219:26–T220:29

[19]  T272:13-24

[20]  And the plaintiffs’ claims

[21]  T2:27-28 (23 November 2012)

[22]  It is to be noted that the bill of costs dated march 2017 specifically details other interactions (phone calls, emails, letters, meetings and conferences with the plaintiffs and CASACIR, but there is not one identification of any such communication or agreement that CASACIR or any of their claims for injurious falsehood and/or misleading and deceptive conduct would be removed or have agreement that they be removed – it appears to have been a decision made solely by KSA, Smith, Southall and Kaye.

[23]  In 2011 and which has probably increased from that time.

[24]  Smith was charged at $360 per hour, Kaye at $275 per hour, Southall at $660 per hour, Spencer at $300 an hour, and Kraan at $275 per hour.

[25]  In breach of their work authority, planning permit and planning report

[26]  This did not occur, but would have but for me flying over in an aeroplane at that time.