New evidence

Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.

There are a number of authorities that specify that no new material need be found or supplied[1] in order to prove fraud. However, there is some new material that proves beyond any doubt that man X and man Y and their team did collude, collaborate and conspire together in order to perpetrate to mislead and achieve the court and inflict significant amount of distress and damage upon me. All the following are important, but their bills of costs are the most revealing.

They each colluded, collaborated and conspired to use the results based on inaccuracies from one case to another – and further aggravated the situation by doing so. Then they introduced new issues not pleaded in the previous case – all to obtain more awards in the next (a few of the many examples are provided in the various website pages).

Following this deplorable conduct, additional new information has come to light proving the inaccuracy of their claims, especially (but not limited to) the 2 bills of costs served on me on 8 March and 5 April 2017.

New evidence of claims of falsity, entire falsity, of the website publications and that they were baselessness and without foundation.

After their success at trial before Pagone J, while ardently objecting to truth being ventilated before his Honour (“[The defendant] continued to attempt to justify and apparently establish the truth of the remarks before the trial judge”), they erroneously and newly claimed that the website publications were false, entirely false, baseless, and without foundation. If these issues had been ventilated before Pagone J the result would have been the polar opposite to that handed down. Not only was their conduct false and misleading, but it was given traction because they had won their defamation case that had been based on fraud. The details of those claims are in the relevant website page.

New evidence that Southall considers that lying under oath and in documents is a little or trifling matter

Southall gave a fresh admissions that he considers that inaccurate misrepresentations given to the court as unassailable fact, including by lying under oath and in his own submissions, are little or trifling matters that the court should not be bothered with [emphasis mine]:

Southall: Or any matters, but in this case small matters such as the issue of who attended a mediation on a particular date; such as the weather there were 23 or 40 days spent at VCAT; whether there was dust being created at any particular time. In the context of this case, they are what could be said to be small matters, or trifling matters even. If they can give vent to are renewal of issue by way of re-litigation, then the principle of finality of litigation really is put in serious generally insofar as it constitutes a very proper and basic principle of law. … No, the point that I was making in this case, is that, it’s a situation where [the defendant] had raised these issues, which we contend – we’re not saying that they were found to be small, we contend they’re small matters, or trifling matters, before His Honour Justice Pagone, and again raised it in her argument in front of His Honour Justice McDonald and His Honour.

Southall aggravated the situation by clearly showing the court that, regardless that his clients’ had lied under oath and that he, himself, had repeatedly given many knowingly inaccurate misrepresentations to the court, that the allegations against them that they had repeatedly broken the law, were small, irrelevant or trifling matters that the court must not waste its time with – it was, according to Southall, far more important to bring the case to an end and shut down any investiation. Ignoring his own inaccurate misrepresentations, Southall even quoted some of the instances of the plaintiffs’ false testimony:

  • the number of days in VCAT: while the number of days does not of itself matter, the fact that man X and man Y each gave collaborated and pre-planned inaccurate testimony does matters for two reasons: (1) that there was collusion and it was pre-planned and collaborative and therefore ought to pass the test for perjury, and (2) the intention was to use their inaccurate testimony to grossly exaggerate their claims against me;
  • the inaccurate claim of man X that he was privy to the conversations in a closed mediation meeting to which he was not a party[2] does matter because (1) he deliberately lied under oath and (2) the intention was to further their inaccurate claims for aggravated damages, and (3) to inaccurately try to discredit me; and
  • the matter of dust was one of the matters about which the man X lied in sworn written and verbal testimony at VCAT, and to which man Y gave his admitted full approval.

This attempt to sway their Honours from investigating inaccurate conduct reveals Southall’s co-operation in such conduct – and certainly his collaboration, approval, and active assistance in the covering up of such conduct (making git suborning of perjury). If Southall’s participation and attitudes to inaccurate conduct and material had been this clear earlier, it would have contributed to different judgments. However, Southall aggravated the situation by making light of the inaccurate conduct and by so doing, caused the court to make a finding against me.

New evidence about the inclusion of the letter of 19 August 2011

The letter dated 19 August 2011 was authored by Barrister ABC (a pseudonym required by court action), was endorsed and posted to me by Smith, and was admitted to have been authorised and approved by each of man X and man Y. In relation to that letter, their Honours of the 2016 Court of Appeal stated:

160 [W]hile a letter before action might not engage a particular overarching obligation, any use or reliance on such a letter after the commencement of a proceeding may do so[3].

This is new, and by so saying, their Honours made the point that the use of the letter brought it under the demands of the overarching obligations of the CPA in relation to honesty and the need to not do anything that may mislead or deceive – however, the use of that letter breached the law as depicted in the CPA in that is was grossly dishonest (with many false claims and denials). Further, Southall’s use of the letter was not just false, but was grossly mendacious. His use of it succeeded in grossly misleading and deceiving the court, and also significantly aggravated the situation. If this issue had been clear earlier, it would have contributed to entirely different judgments. The fraudulent details of that letter are in the relevant website page.

New evidence in relation to the number of iterations of the statement of claim

New evidence has come to hand in relation to the claim by Southall that there were not the number of iterations served. Their Honours of the 2016 Court of Appeal revealed the means by which they (and other judges) had been deluded by Southall’s inaccurate submissions. If the obfuscation of these clear and successful inaccurate denials had been seen more clearly earlier, it would have contributed to different judgments (Pagone and McDonald JJ were mislead as were Warren CJ, Tate, Santamaria, and Kyrou JJA and Ginnane and Elliott AJJA). Details of how the judges were actively deceived by Southall are exhibited within website pages about Southall’s conduct and the number of iterations.

New evidence that CASACIR has continued to breach its permit and work authority conditions

My related parties took CASACIR to VCAT in 2009/2010 due to the multitude of breaches of their planning permit and work authority conditions (as well as their own undertakings). The results of those cases were the basis of my website which in turn became the basis of their claims against me. Man X, man Y[4] and CASACIR lied, including under oath, claiming that they had not breached their permit and work authority conditions and, because they lied, they won – including being granted over $100,000 in total costs.

However, I recently discovered that CASACIR has further aggravated the situation by continuing to breach a number of their permit and work authority conditions and have thereby proved that its previous claims and denials were fraudulent, not only at court, but going right back to VCAT.

Man X, man Y, and CASACIR, had respectively previously inaccurately claimed, inter alia, that:

(g)    [Man X] has not provided provably incorrect sworn information to VCAT[5].

(j)    [Man X] did not interpret orders made by VCAT how he wanted to interpret them rather than how they should be interpreted. All orders made by VCAT were implemented and followed by … [man X][6]

(k)   [Man X] has not sworn to things that are not so[7].

(c)    [Man Y] did not interpret orders made by VCAT how he wanted to interpret them rather than how they should be interpreted. All orders made by VCAT were implemented and followed by … [man Y][8]

(k)   Casacir does not have a history of non compliance with planning and/or work permit [sic] conditions.[9]

(q)   It is incorrect to allege that Casacir has failed to comply with sworn testimony, conditions and undertakings. All orders made by VCAT were implemented and followed by Casacir [and man X and man Y].[10]

The orders of the tribunal included the following:

51 … The use and development of the subject land must at all times be in accordance with the Work Authority, including the approved work plan, issued pursuant to the Extractive Industries Development Act 1995.[11]

On 10 January 2017, I discovered that, as at least at November 2016, there were a number of new matters occurring on the quarry land that were occurring outside of the VCAT order, the permit conditions and the work authority conditions (and this continued and grew). This included activities outside the work authority area. Therefore, this information proves that both of man X and man Y on their own, and on behalf of CASACIR, had made the above inaccurate claims and denials to both VCAT and the court by continuing to breach the VCAT orders as well as their permit and work authority conditions – and by doing so have aggravated the situation. If this misleading and deceptive conduct had been in evidence at the court, it would have changed the judgments.

New evidence about Southall’s claims as to the amount claimed in the VCAT hearing

In order to try to further deceive the court over my offers dated 14 February 2011 (Sadler’s[12] email to Peake), 1 March 2011 (Sadler’s further email to Peake), and 16 March 2011 (my letter to KSA re-iterating Sadler’s offer), Southall inaccurately claimed that I knew in both February and March 2011 that the costs awarded against me were $82,000.

Southall was knowingly and either inaccurately or ignorantly misconstruing dates and times [emphasis mine]:

Me: I was referring to the offers. Now, whilst it wasn’t “$100,000” exactly – and I did mention yesterday that there were the two extra clauses. The fact that there were costs awarded against us, we had no idea what those costs were going to be, so we thought ballpark $50,000. So when I said $100,000, that was $50,000 that they had talked about plus the costs, which we estimated at about $50,000, so I ball parked it as $100,000.

Southall: [tShe just saidWe didn’t know what the quantum of costs“, I think she said, “that had been ordered”

His Honour: That was at the mediation, and after the hearing you’re saying that this represents an increase in what had been put to the mediation, because there was then extant an order for costs in the order of about $70,000.

Southall: No, no, that’s not right. There was no extant order for costs, there was an extant judgment with costs reserved.

His Honour: Which you expect that you would have known what your costs were – – –

Southall: I’m not saying that. My clients might have expected the costs to be $150,000 for all they knew.

His Honour: You just said to me that the costs were in fact about $70,000.

Southall: The costs as they were subsequently fixed[13] – arrived at after the VCAT proceeding, but since then there’s been another $40,000 or $50,000 in costs spent on the Supreme Court appeal, which [she] also lost, so we’re talking about a sum of money exceeding six figures.

His Honour: But as at March 2011 what was purported to be accepted or put back to your client, had it reached your client’s attention was, we accept what you’ve suggested, what we want to do is include an order that each party pay their own costs; where each at that point, had you thought about it, you would have worked out would have been about $70,000. Your client seems to say, well, if you come back with an offer of the average of two plus $100,000 we probably would have accepted it.

Southall admits that his clients didn’t know the total of the costs at the time of the offers, yet I was supposed to have known. Further, in order to try to add to it, Southall mentioned the additional costs of the appeal that were not even on the horizon until 2012 (6 months after the website commenced and a year after the correspondence).

Southall’s conduct aggravated the situation by his continued and inaccurate claims. This is proved by the fact that the first time I knew that CASACIR was claiming any costs was on 11 May 2011[14] when it served me with a bill in the sum of $68,155.78 – and it is important to note that at that point no order had been handed down as any granting of costs because no hearing had been held – in fact, this was the date that they applied to VCAT for costs. In addition, 11 May 2011 was 4 months after Sadler’s email and 3 months after my letter.

It is critical to note that on 13 December 2011 while at VCAT seeking a costs order in relation to the failed enforcement application, CASACIR failed to mention their claims before the Supreme Court for defamation, injurious falsehood and misleading and deceptive conduct – this hearing was just one week after filing with the court and just 2 days prior to serving the writ, summons and first statement of claim – the relevance of this is at least three-fold: (1) they made note of the fact that the tribunal was mentioned in my website, (2) they were giving multiple inaccurate misrepresentations to the member about my conduct, testimony and intent, and (3) the costs they applied for at that hearing were in the sum of $68,155.78 in spite of Southall submitting to Pagone J as absolute fact that I knew almost a year earlier, that the costs were over $100,000.00.

Further, the bill of costs claimed on 11 May 2011, and in the final (and elevated) bill of costs dated 28 February 2012 (over a year after Sadler’s email and 11 months after my letter), both included inaccurate charges for many items that were totally unrelated to the enforcement proceedings[15] (the February 2012 bill for $82,357.66 was subsequently reduced to $57,961.30 at taxation). Because I was unprepared for Southall’s inaccurate submissions, I did not have the figures and/or dates to hand at the time and was therefore caught by surprise (with neither the issues nor the figures having been previously pleaded in any manner). I subsequently hunted through correspondence and discovered the bills evidencing the dates and amounts. I can certainly supply the bills and excerpts from Peake’s submissions regarding the costs – they sought permission for costs in the amount of $68,155.78 before VCAT but then actually elevated the claimed costs to $82,357.66. Southall’s inaccurate submissions aggravated the situation by becoming part of Pagone J’s judgment[16].

New evidence that man X and man Y acknowledged that their claims in relation to the sale of the Shapher land were not valid

Pagone J found that there was no basis for their claims that I had acted with any lack of good faith, with the existence of a collateral or anterior purpose, or that I was guilty of any unjustified and unreasonable conduct[17].

Pagone J also found that there was no basis for any claims in relation to any pressure put on man X or man Y in order to force them to buy the Shapher land.[18]

They had failed to discover certain documents which decried their above claims, and then Southall actively deceived the court about the documents. These were documents that Pagone J stated were particularly relevant to man X and man Y’s case[19] and should have been produced by them but were not. Southall told Pagone J as absolute fact that man Y had instructed Southall that he wanted to get in the witness box and [lie under oath and] say that he know nothing about them when two of the documents were actually in the affidavit of documents that he swore to and which Southall settled.

Approximately a quarter of the trial was about the above claims and thus was entirely wasted time, and aggravated the situation. This caused significantly additional costs, some of which they have claimed (they were ordered to not make such claims, but they have claimed some of them regardless).

Southall subsequently admitted that they had ceased to plead those issues under appeal:

[Y]ou may have read in the judgment there was considerable reference by His Honour to the negotiations over certain land. That point is no longer relied upon.

As stated, Pagone noted that these claims were central to their case. Therefore, Pagone J proved that they had no proper basis for their claims and that the claims were therefore inaccurate, and knowingly so and had thereby aggravated the situation.

New evidence that man X and man Y were very worried about my application

I received a letter posted on 15 December 2016, the day after the judgment dated 14 December 2016. This was an abusive, nasty, critical, malicious, vitriolic letter from some spiteful, unintelligent and irrational troll connected to man X and man Y – i.e. someone who lacked the moral integrity to put their name to it, and who used yet more fraudulent information (e.g. fraudulent sender name and address) to try to intimidate, harass, ridicule and chastise me into dropping this website and any other action against CASACIR or man X or man Y. Thereby they have yet further aggravated the situation. I will refer to the “letter” as a diatribe since that is the best and politest description of it.

Ironically, this diatribe has much more emphasis in it than man X and man Y and their team’s objections about my website.

The diatribe goes on to state [emphasis theirs’]:

It’s all on the internet for everyone to read – the woman who continued to believe she was right about everything, while every Tribunal member and judge continued to disagree and order against her and award costs against her. A fool and her money are soon parted. Time to let it go …. You’re wrong. You’re a loser. All of the judgments let the world know how much of a loser you are.

What a “charmer” the author is (not). This letter is a further attempt to belittle and demoralise me, as is typical of their conduct.

As a result of this letter, I felt the need to take this action to right the wrongs they did to me (and my related parties). Further, this website is to try to set the community straight about the fact that there really is no justice system – only some people and companies who mislead and deceive, authorities that refuse to ensure compliance with the law and actively cover for and support breaches of the law, and a number of legal practitioners who actively mislead and deceive the tribunal and court: it is a very broken system with the courts trying to do their best with their hands tied behind their back.

On one issue they are correct: a precedent based on fraud has wrongly been set because of their conduct, and is used a number of times in Victoria, probably around Australia, and possibly even around the world – it is certainly on websites that have international readers.

If any action is taken against me, I will ask the court to order that DNA and fingerprints be taken from the pages, envelope and stamp to discover the person who sent it.

This troll’s diatribe shows the importance of taking this action and revealing that the judgments were based on the proliferation of inaccurate, and even fraudulent, misrepresentations. In addition, this letter from the troll aggravated the situation yet further, by continuing the matters on in spite of Southall submitting to the court that his clients wanted it to all be over.

It must be noted that, after posting the above, the troll moved to on-line trolling so there were no physical fingerprints or DNA.

Apology

Southall made a large issue of the fact that I had not apologised to his clients at an early stage, and that I had continued to assert the truthfulness of what I had written.

To quote Southall himself:

The law of defamation has particular rules applying to it, one is that the issue of an apology over a publication, whether it be libellous or slanderous, which harms a person’s reputation or reduces the feeling or impinges significantly upon feelings upon goodwill, that is by way of distress and suffering. An apology is something that is expected in any event, and that’s why it’s enshrined in s.30(a) of the Defamation Act”. True it is 30(a) is in the context of mitigation, but nevertheless, apology, in our submission, apology has traditionally flowed as a matter, certainly in the context of damages

Injury to the plaintiff’s reputation could be increased by readers or listeners who may have anticipated an apology. So might likewise injury to feelings be increased. Indeed, the failure to apologise itself could well in some cases further injure the plaintiff’s feelings or cause him disappointment. An apology may reduce the harm or hurt suffered by the plaintiff, absent such an apology, the harm or hurt may be increased.

I have said a number of times that neither man X or man Y, nor any of their team have made any admissions (and have in fact denied what they have done – including Barrister ABC (a short-term pseudonym required by court action) who tried to take action against me for revealing what he had done), and they certainly have not repented, shown any regret or remorse, and have not in any way changed their conduct. Not one of them has apologised at all. Of course, that is hardly surprising because, inter alia:

  • they are not sorry for what they have done;
  • it has proven so endemic in their behaviour that they don’t believe they have done anything wrong;
  • they have evidenced the fact that they believe that collaboration, collusion, conspiracy and fraudulent conduct is not only acceptable, but is the preferred strategy to implement; and
  • they get magnificently rewarded for it.

According to man X and man Y themselves, this is conduct warrants a considerable award of aggravated damages. Details about their gross misuse of my apology are in the so named website page.

New proof that man X and man Y’s offer of compromise dated 15 March 2013 was not genuine

Man X and man Y served me with an offer of compromise on 15 March 2013. This offer was for $40,000 plus costs. They subsequently claimed that this offer had been genuine. However, it was newly discovered that the real reason for the action against me was actually to be able to obtain access to my assets. And, because of their extraordinary deliberate, erroneous and duplicitous conduct, they have succeeded. The details in relation to their offer of compromise are in the website pages in relation to offers of compromise and the real reason for their action.

New evidence that man X and man Y deliberately delayed in the particularisation of the words claimed to be offensive

Southall personally and repeatedly used the delay in removal of the words claimed to be offensive against me. Their Honours were swayed by Southall’s claims and this is noted in their judgments[20]. However, well previous to finalising or filing or serving their first iteration of their statement of claim, Kaye had printed out the pages, highlighted the words, and tagged them. The delay in providing me with particularisation, as well as the delay in taking action was actually all about having more information to try to use against me. Such deliberate delays reveal that there were no real impacts by way of injury in man X or man Y’s credit or reputation, they had not been brought into any public ridicule or contempt, they had not suffered any distress, embarrassment or humiliation, and had not sustained any injury, loss or damage – those claims were clearly false. The details of the deliberate delays an how they used it against me are in the relevant website page.

New changes to documents in the later case

After deliberately delaying the particularisation so as to use it against me, even when they did finally provide the particularised words objected to, they swamped me with a folder of some 309 pages, only 7 pages of which each had a few lines in which the words objected to were identified – thus providing 98% of wasteful content.

The main and new issue is the fact that they sought to sway their Honours at the appeal of the s29 application. They did this by belatedly going through the folder and highlighting many of the pages that had not previously been highlighted, and had not been used or pleaded in any way, shape or form – and they did so in an effort to try to delude their Honours into believing that the entire folder was of importance. This was new and reveals new, ongoing and consistent fraudulent conduct.

New proof of many of my claims

Man X and man Y served on me a bill of costs under letter of 8 March 2017, and another under letter dated 5 April 2017. As explained, the bills clearly identified who the perpetrators were, who collaborated, colluded and conspired with whom, what they did and did not do, the rewards they gains and the loses I suffered. These bills substantiate many of my claims as to the nature of their actions, claims and denials.

[1]    These are included and detailed in the list of authorities provided in the first affidavit in support of the application for special leave to appeal.

[2]    It would be similar to him swearing under oath that he knew what happened in the judges’ chambers when we all know that he could not possibly be privy to that information.

[3]    Judgment, Reasons at [160]

[4]    What was sworn to by man X in the name of CASACIR was also the responsibility of man Y, being, at that point, a joint director.

[5]    The first 5 iterations of their statement of claim at paragraphs 20 and 29 “as to [man X’s] [statements / representations]”.

[6]    Ibid

[7]    Ibid

[8]    The first 5 iterations of their statement of claim at paragraphs 20 and 29 “as to [man Y’s] [statements / representations]”

[9]    The first 5 iterations of their statement of claim at paragraphs 20 and 29 “as to the CASACIR [statements / representations]”

[10]   Ibid

[11]   The Extractive Industries Development Act 1995 was replaced by the Mineral Resource (Sustainable Development) Act on 1 January 2010.

[12]   Dr Robert Sadler was the barrister acting on behalf of me and my related parties at that time.

[13]   The costs were not fixed other than for rates for practitioners

[14]   coincidently one month prior to my first website going on line.

[15]   But were, inter alia, related to the water claim where each side undertook to pay its own costs, and to costs that they had accumulated in preparing documents and reports solely for compliance with their planning permit.

[16]   Judgment, Reasons at [52]-[53]

[17]   Judgment, Reasons at [55]

[18]   Ibid

[19]   Judgment, Reasons at [53]

[20]   Judgment, Reasons at [85]