Man X and man Y’s barrister at the time, Anthony Southall KC, told the various courts that man X and man Y just wanted to get on with their lives and that they wanted all the litigation to end (what they actually meant was that they wanted me to stop, but not them). Fry has singlehandedly proved that Southall prolifically and determinedly lied to the courts when Southall made the following submissions as absolute fact [emphasis added]: “We could be coming back, and we don’t want to keep coming back[1], we don’t want it dragged out[2] … that is interests of the finality of litigation… The finality of litigation, it’s an important point”[3]. “Our preferred course of action is that the whole thing be put to sleep to stop [her taking action]”[4]. “My junior and I and [Smith] and [man X and man Y] have been fully aware [of the need to resolve disputes rather than have them fester, for not months but years”[5]. “His Honour is functus officio. You have His Honour’s judgment. You have read it. You have His Honour’s order of 23 May [2013], which came in the other day. That’s an order which refers to damages and costs being awarded against [her] as the defendant[6]. She seeks directly by that summons, the power of which is in doubt in any event, to gainsay His Honour’s judgment on costs. We say it ought to be struck out forthwith. It really is an abuse of the court’s processes”[7]. “[Man X and man Y] were very cognisant of His Honour Justice Pagone’s words at the conclusion of the trial that there has to be finality to litigation,[8] [and] there is another matter that touches upon that, and that is interests of the finality of litigation[9], the finality of litigation[10] … but it’s still very relevant because it is predicated on the principle of finality”[11]. “One matter that arose out of that principle on finality in the Attwells case is, the purpose of finality is to put an end to the re-litigation of small matters,[12] … the principle of finality of litigation”.[13] “[T]hey ought not to be seen as enabling a litigant to re-open issues of fact;[14] even if the court thought that it should go through the exercise of looking at every alleged lie, or alleged untruth which was raised by the applicant here, we would contend that Mr Justice McDonald quite properly found that it was not appropriate in the interests of justice to grant relief [by reference to finality]”.[15] “I mean, of course, our submission, our preferred course of action is that the whole thing be put to sleep, to stop this.”[16] “We can contend that the whole thing should be put on rest; but it is certainly a matter she can do, is to take further advice and put off the evil day. It has the dreadful sword of Damocles hanging over our client’s head”[17]. “An order awarding [man X and man Y] indemnity costs pursuant to s40(2)(a) would further the overarching purposes and give effect to the overarching obligation to use reasonable endeavours to resolve a dispute,[18] encouraging early resolution of litigation”[19]. “The public interest in finality in litigation is an important consideration[20] … in this context, the public interest in finality in litigation assumes critical importance”[21].
Man X and man Y further authorised and approved of Southall telling their Honours of the 2016 appeal court that lying under oath was a small or trifling matter, a matter that the court should not worry about and should not take the time to consider – that it was far more important to finish the case than to actually assess the proof of my allegations regarding their conduct [emphasis added]:
Santamaria JA: What is your contention? Is it your contention that the principle of finality is to guard against the re-litigation of small matters?
Southall: Yes.[22]
Santamaria JA: By reference to finality?
Southall: Yes[23].
And yet Fry has continued the litigation and has encouraged man X, together with man Y’s replacement, Susan Curnow, to continue the litigation as far and as long-lasting as they can.
There are 3 main issues here:
- The whole drama started in 2005 and continues – so much for finalising and bringing it all to an end, and
- it proves that the claim they made back in 2012 was true: they have relentlessly followed through on their intent to have access to all our assets (and take as much of them as they could and can), and
they don’t want it to actually end – I contend that they have proved they lied and lied and lied, and they are still lying.
[1] T2:21-22 (15 July 2013)
[2] T10:19-20 (15 July 2013)
[3] T9:7, 19-20 (11 October 2016)
[4] T10:6-7 (20 June 2017)
[5] T67:9-11 (10 April 2013)
[6] That order was made by Pagone J because Southall blatantly and deliberately lied and told His Honour that I had not served an Offer of Compromise on Southall’s clients that was larger than the damages awarded, when I had done so.
[7] T13:9-18 (4 June 2013)
[8] T9:13-15 (20 September 2013)
[9] T9:7 (11 October 2016)
[10] T9:19-20 (11 October 2016)
[11] T105:8-9 (11 October 2016)
[12] T106:26-29 (11 October 2016)
[13] T107:25-26 (11 October 2016)
[14] T108:18-19 (11 October 2016)
[15] T108:21-26 (11 October 2016)
[16] T10:5-7 (20 June 2017)
[17] T11:15-20 (20 June 2017)
[18] Ibid, at paragraph 32
[19] Their written submissions dated 9 July 2015, at paragraph 9
[20] Their written submissions dated 5 May 2016, at paragraph 1.10
[21] Ibid, at paragraph 3.22
[22] T107:12-15 (11 October 2016)
[23] T108:29-30 (11 October 2016)