Graeme Peake

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.

Graeme Peake (“Peake”) was CASACIR’s primary barrister in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

There were many times, as noted in throughout this page, where Peake provided knowingly misleading and fraudulent statements to the members and VCAT, and did not correct them.

Peake repeatedly, and without any valid cause or reason:

  • made significantly derogatory and totally unwarranted statements which unwarrantedly accused me of wrong motives and wrong actions;
  • made accusations that I had been vexatious in assisting my related parties in taking actions against CASACIR for:
    • their fraudulent claims, denials, documentation, undertakings, and
    • breaches of their permit and work authority conditions, as well as
    • having ignored legislation and thereby broken the law;
    • having unlawfully removed the water from our property;
    • and the like;
  • falsely made accusations that I was taking action without knowing the facts;
  • falsely made the accusation that I fully intended to take further action without reason, and
  • falsely attempted to discredit me before the members and VCAT.

I consider that this behaviour was fraudulent, scandalous, defamatory, belittling and abusive, and completely against the legislation that is supposed to govern his conduct.

Peake was fundamental to the VCAT proceedings in 2008. A very incomplete list follows:

  • he entirely ran the case;
  • he brought forward a hydrogeologist, John Nolan from Hyder, to give evidence. Nolan changed his entire claims without any warning or documentation (catching us by surprise). For example, his changes included “facts” that the watertables were not where he had previously stated they were and that there would be a wetland (which was really just an narrow open drain which wound back and forth) in the erosion management overlay (without council’s input or permission);
  • he told the members as absolute fact that CASACIR would discuss the water situation with me and my related parties when CASACIR clearly had no intention of doing so because (1) not only has it never done so, but (2) instead of discussing it CASACIR (a) illegally took the flow of water and diverted it so that the flow was not available to my related parties (and then refused to restore it until legal action was taken and then further legal action threatened), and (b) polluted the water by drainage, and (c) proved that, in spite of having later signed a binding terms of settlement agreement to never again interfere with the flow, it fully intended to permanently removed the entire flow from our property;
  • he falsely inferred before the members that my related party’s hydrogeologist was a liar;
  • he sought to have the members refuse to allow the objectors to add one further witness statement to their evidence (and succeeded in it not being allowed), then he tried to get information in to the case that related to the land when it was a previous quarry (before the licence had been handed back in and the land fully rehabilitated) – information could have been obtained by way of freedom of information (but he had not availed himself of that option) – clearly one rule for him and one for the other side;
  • he tried to stop Kraan (CASACIR’s planning specialist and a member of Peake’s clients’ quasi-legal team) from telling the members the name behind the acronym CASACIR (Crush Any Shit And Call It Rock);
  • he told the members as absolute fact that CASACIR would comply with its permit conditions if the permit was allowed, but CASACIR did not comply with many of the conditions – and it is my belief that he knew CASACIR would not comply and he certainly did not care that they did not comply – it is clear that he made the strong and forthright claim that they would comply in order to gain them the permit;
  • he produced a specific brochure from Atlas Copco that specified a particular silenced drill and told the members that this drill would be the one used on the quarry site, but at the later P2943 enforcement hearing he denied the existence of that brochure and that drill. In fact, at the later enforcement hearing in 2010, under cross-examination by Peake, I testified:

You yourself presented the document to the 2008 Tribunal (indistinct) the statement that this is what would be used. The inquiries have been made. It had just been introduced into Australia and this is what was going to be used.

Peake did not deny it.

  • when going on a site visit with the members:
    • he complained when I pointed out to the members that CASACIR had claimed that a house was 1km away from the impacts of the site when it would only be 300m away;
    • he gave the members information that was contrary to the documents submitted as fact;
    • he told the members as absolute fact that the driver (a CASACIR representative) would remain silent during the site visit (he was the only one with a car with sufficient seats to take one person from each side and the members) – but the representative did not remain silent and put in his opinion frequently, and Peake refused to tell him to be quiet; and
  • Peake collaborated, colluded and conspired with CASACIR and the rest of the legal and quasi-legal team to perpetrate fraud upon the members at VCAT.

Peake was fundamental to the VCAT proceedings in 2009. A very incomplete list follows:

  • he acted on behalf of council while charging my related parties for that work;
  • he settled both of the CASACIR sworn affidavits, knowing that many matters sworn thereto were false;
  • he gave advice to CASACIR and the remainder of the team on my applications, affidavits and exhibits;
  • he approved and settled CASACIR’s legal team’s correspondence;
  • during the main hearing, and the preceding hearing in relation to CASACIR’s claims for joinder and security of costs, he settled and presented submissions and addresses as absolute unassailable fact regardless of knowing there was significant fraudulent content;
  • he supported and assisted CASACIR’s fraudulent sworn evidence;
  • he presented and ran CASACIR’s case in mediations;
  • he ran the majority of the proceedings within the confines of VCAT;
  • he introduced and brought into evidence in-confidential and without prejudice letters without discussion or permission from me in order to sway the members from looking at what CASACIR had really done;
  • he tried to destroy my reputation by unwarranted, unsubstantiated and fraudulent verbal assaults on me;
  • he deceived the members in relation to the reason CASACIR’s first work plan was unendorsed and tried to stop me from revealing the real reason. In addition, he tried to give the impression to the members that I called everyone liars;
  • he assisted CASACIR to use hearsay as absolute fact – it is important to note that not one of those people identified through the hearsay were brought in as witnesses, yet their hearsay was used by Peake as absolute and unassailable fact;
  • he wasted 13 (11.3% of the total) of the transcript on the house on my related party’s land;
  • he wasted 3 (2.5% of the total) pages on the unendorsement of CASACIR’s first work plan;
  • he wasted 2 (1.5% of the total) pages on how many letters I wrote to the authorities in complaint over the deceptions in the material provided as fact, and about the multitude of breaches of conditions and legislation;
  • he wasted 16 pages (14% of the total) on interpretations of conditions and complaints to and about regulatory authorities instead of addressing the complained of failures;
  • he caused significant surprise by introducing a number of matters that had not been pleaded and made them mainstays of CASACIR’s case. This included deliberately withholding a document that he used as the crux of CASACIR’s defence until the very last day when part way through giving testimony (the contents of this document were discussed during CASACIR’s sworn evidence, taking up almost 30% of its testimony – this is just one of the instances where we had been caught by surprise and thereby were robbed of having the opportunity to prepare). The interesting thing here is that Peake referred to CASACIR having already given evidence:

So [CASACIR] gave evidence that during that first week of noise monitoring Mr Lockhart was cutting silage on the property. You are not in a position to dispute that, are you? … I’m talking about silage….

CASACIR had not given any evidence to that point, and indeed, did not give evidence until 2 days later, on 26 November 2010. What Peake’s comment did show was that he knew about, and had possession of, the diary that he had deliberately hidden from discovery. In fact, Peake then went on to further enlighten us about the existence of the diary and what CASACIR would give evidence as to:

[CASACIR] will also give evidence that during that first week of noise measuring Casacir had an excavator operating on the top bench stripping over the – so if that’s what [it] says and that’s what the quarry diary reveals.

I, being stressed at the time, did not pick up on the revelations, and neither did my then barrister, Sadler.

Peake:

  • wasted 14 (12% of the total) pages in relation to letters and offers relating to my related party’s land for sale, and move elsewhere – my offers of the land for sale were based on an offer made at a community meeting on 25 June 2005: that if anyone present wanted to sell their land rather than have a quarry next door, that CASACIR would purchase the land at price determined by a sworn valuation based on a without-quarry valuation. It is to be noted that Sadler failed to take umbrage at the introduction of the letters, especially with some of them being “without prejudice” and/or “in confidence”, or to require a purpose for their introduction (but perhaps he knew because Peake has already told him and he had no objection);
  • wasted 4 (3.5% of the total) pages on addressing how much time I spent at our property and how often rather than the issues I observed regarding CASACIR’s failures to comply;
  • wasted 5 (4.3% of the total) pages on whether or not I could see into the quarry and from where and what I could see or not see;
  • made claims in his pleadings for costs that were fraudulent;
  • wasted 6 (5% of the total) pages on addressing the possibility of my and/or my related parties taking action against CASACIR in relation to the water. In fact, Peake stated unequivocally that:

You are aware that in Stage 2 of this proposal, the spring that feeds the waterway through your land will be excavated out of existence?[1]

Now what that is talking about is when the spring is dug up[2]

Not only had CASACIR illegally removed the flow and refused to restore the flow until legal action was taken and then further legal action threatened, but Peake proved from the above quotes that his clients fully intended to absolutely break the binding terms of settlement they signed at VCAT (which had been approved by Peake).

  • was rude about the site boundary interpretations:

Mr Peake: You interpret the site as not being the boundary of the property but a being the boundary of the work authority?

[Me]: Yes, and that is based on Casacir’s documentation.

Mr Peake: … I don’t need to know why you think that. I just need to know you think it, okay. We have heard the explanation before.

It is entirely relevant to note that Peake’s clients and their specialists have clearly identified the site boundaries as being the WA boundary.

Peake made a fraudulent misrepresentation about the drill, but put it in a way so as to actively deceive without actually lying:

Would you accept that what is being used on the site is in fact an Atlas Copco Smart Rig?[3]

The Smart Rig was a silenced (fully encased) drill and the drill first used by CASACIR for many months had no cover at all, then later had a box added that did not encase the drill. Further, I made the case that the drill used was the F9C, not the D9C (the silenced drill). Peake made further fraudulent misrepresentations by saying that the F9C drill was a top hammer drill, not the type used at the quarry:

I am sorry, …. I am getting a bit lost here. All of the photographs that I have seen that you say are an unsilenced drill rig are a boom rig. They have this big drill that sticks up in the area … And F9C isn’t. It is a –what do they call it? It is a top hammer rig.

See, …, you look at those photographs. There are a number of photographs of drill rigs attached to your affidavits… All of them look a bit like the middle one, don’t they, in that they’re the crushing drill … They don’t look like the F9C at all, do they? Which is a top hammer drill … What I am putting to you is that in fact all of the photographs contained in your affidavits are not of an F9C.

This virulent and entirely unwarranted attack, made in an attempt to make me appear to be a liar and to be providing fraudulent evidence. It was only after I refused to be worn down that Peake finally said:

I’m not going to pursue that any further in the circumstances but I will hand up my brochure to the Tribunal so that it can see what the problem was. It appears from the front page to be the same brochure but the relevant page is somewhat, to my chagrin, different.

This “about turn” was not a mistake because one of the photos that I provided clearly had the identifying F9C on the side of the drill.

As seen, Peake spent over 54% of the cross-examination of me wasting time on peripheral issues rather than looking to see if there was any truth in my allegations about CASACIR – all that time was spent trying to made me look bad and his to take the heat off his clients (This only stopped when I brought him back to the issues in hand – because my barrister (Sadler), who appeared to be close friends with Peake, did not do so). Even when Peake was addressing the permit issues, he did so in a very accusatory manner, making me the problem and not the fact that CASACIR had lied in sworn affidavits (which Peake settled), and failed to comply with the permit and work authority conditions. By his actions during cross-examination, Peake actively assisted his clients to get away with their deceit.

Peake further personally and virulently attacked me:

Mr Chairman, it’s relevant in terms of the reasonableness of the application and it’s relevant to, if you like, the purpose of bringing enforcement proceedings and it’s ultimately relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretions. Because I will be putting to you, sir, that [the applicant] when it comes to planning enforcement is probably the most unreasonable person that could be imagined and that rather than seeking to enforce the permit for the purpose of achieving the objectives of planning in Victoria and the policy outcomes sought in the Baw Baw Planning Scheme that it is part of an ongoing personal and vindictive campaign against my client. It is not only being directed to these premises but it is actually directed to my client as evidenced by this email relating to the Jindivick Quarry which on any view, the position that [the applicant] has taken is very harsh, and on any view has no impact on her. Therefore the Tribunal can conclude that it’s actually a campaign against my client as opposed to an application based on sound and reasonable planning concerns.


It appears that it is entirely unreasonable to make comparisons, to take issue with being robbed of water, peace and quiet, air quality, and the like. He ignored his clients’ blatant failures to comply with legislation and their conditions, and made it about the fact that I had had the gall to call them to account. Peake was so biased that he was prepared to blatantly act fraudulently. He knew the truth (there is no excuse because I had provided 200 pages of photos and FOI results), and as revealed above, he repeatedly twisted facts to try to gain a fraudulent result. He chose to act falsely, he broke the law and must seriously be taken to task. So convincing was he that the senior member responded:

I think it goes to credit. What we make of it we’ll have to decide but it could be indicative of a disposition of officious inter-meddling and vindictiveness towards Casacir. I’m not saying that we’re deciding that it does but if that’s the motivation of the proceedings it might reflect on credit. 


All this is without detailing or exposing Peake’s multiplicity of known and deliberate fraudulent misrepresentations in relation to CASACIR’s 2 sworn affidavits that Peake settled, and without detailing Peake’s assistance in CASACIR giving fraudulent sworn testimony. It is also without exposing Peake’s defamatory, derogative and grossly erroneous misrepresentations in relation to my conduct.

Peake used my efforts to force his clients to comply, against me, and thereby applauded his clients’ continued failure to comply with (1) the law, (2) their permit, and (3) their work authority conditions. So successful was he in his deplorable and grossly erroneous misrepresentations, defamation or me, and appalling conduct that he swayed the members as seen above. That conduct was part of the grossly erroneous evidence and information that contributed to his client, CASACIR, being awarded in excess of $57,000.00 in costs just in relation to the (failed) enforcement application – an unusual situation in VCAT.

After Peake had wasted significant time (as revealed in transcript pages) on how often I was at my related party’s property and for what purpose, I finally said:

I’m sorry, I thought we were here to hear whether the work of the quarry was complying or not. I’m happy to answer any questions but to me this is a bit of a waste of time, in my opinion.

Again, Sadler had failed to come to my aide and object to the examinations, nor did he try to bring the cross-examination back onto the matters that were relevant.

The impact of Peake’s appalling and grossly erroneous misrepresentations, defamation and conduct was that:

  • It resulted in a further almost $50,000 in appeal costs, with his grossly erroneous misrepresentations reverberating through the appeal and swaying the judge;
  • It resulted in a case against me at court (when I revealed the truth of what had happened at VCAT and what was still happening) being swayed by the trail of Peake’s grossly erroneous misrepresentations and defamation being used against me. The use of the tribunal’s decisions thereby swaying the courts – resulting in damages, costs, and interest in the sum of a further $350,000 having been paid by me, and a yet further $550,000 being claimed against me.

All up, Peake’s despicable conduct contributed to costing me almost $1m in payouts and that does not take into consideration the additional $1.5m it has cost me and my related parties in lost productivity, lost opportunity, loss of property value, legal fees, specialists’ fees and the like.

Truth and justice appear to be meaningless to Peake, as revealed by his conduct. Further details and documents are available if required.

Peake was a crucial part of the entire VCAT process and not only assisted in the grossly erroneous use of material and information, but was proactive in support of falsely sworn evidence. He also personally defamed me, made grossly erroneous claims, denials, addresses, submissions and twisted facts to make them appear to be factual when they were actually and knowingly false. He supported hearsay. He deliberately and knowingly hid documents. By such appalling conduct, he thereby won the cases for his clients – and was grandly rewarded by being paid significant fees. For example, according to bills and documents, he was paid at least $116,435.00 (and this figure does not take into account his fees all the costs for the 2008 review matter, or his fees for the 2011 costs application before Byard at VCAT, or his fees for the part he played in the water claims, or the work he did to support his clients in their Supreme Court application – all of which he would have been paid for).

I have heard that Peake is using his success with these cases as grounds for success in other unrelated cases – while it is hearsay, it is entirely believable – why wouldn’t he when his conduct had such great success.

[1]    T73:2-4 (24 November 2010)

[2]    T88:12-13 (24 November 2010)

[3]    T67:9-10 (24 November 2010)