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.
Registrar Ryan (“Ryan R”)
I had applied to set aside the bankruptcy notice and the order behind it on the basis of a counter claim, a request that the court go behind the order, and on the grounds that I had no ability to pay the debt. In the hearing held on 30 January 2018, Ryan R of the Federal Court told me (self-represented applicant), and Mr Lionel Green (for the respondents), that he had read the affidavit I filed a week earlier:
So I’ve read your affidavit that was filed together with your application … your affidavit of 23 January 2018 together with the – the annexures[1]
Obviously I’ve come to this recently and the parties have been involved in litigation for some time but I’m familiar with the material that you’ve – you’ve filed[2]
As I said, I’ve read – I’ve read the evidence[3].
Yet, in spite of me having providing the proof required, he made the finding that:
On a review of the applicant’s material in support of her proposed counterclaim, I am not satisfied that it has sufficient prospects of success to justify setting aside the bankruptcy notice. Notwithstanding the volume of material filed by the applicant in support of her claims, I am of the view that that her allegations against the respondents concerning their engagement in fraud and perjury consist of assertions which are not substantiated by any objective evidence[4].
Accordingly, in the circumstances, I will orders as follows:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application[5].
This is extraordinary given that I had proved that fraud had extensively been perpetrated against me and that, inter alia, I had been defamed and intimidated by man X and man Y and their legal team.
Ryan R also said that:
I’ve also read copies of the relevant decisions of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Court of Appeal. So I’m aware of the issues[6].
I’m pretty familiar with the – with those decisions… And a number of them recite the history which I understand is considerable, the VCAT proceedings, the defamation proceeding, the various appeals, the section 29 application, appeals from that, the taxation … bills of costs … negotiations, mediation. I’m aware of all that[7].
And what I said was that I’m – I’m pretty aware of the history[8].
I assume that, because Ryan R also told me that he had read each of the judgments preceding this application, that he had not properly read my affidavit fully (as in read and absorb the true facts – and I contend that this was likely given that he didn’t have much time to do a proper and thorough read of my affidavit). I contend that the previous judgments swayed him because of the snowball effect i.e. each of the previous judges had been swayed by the previous judgment(s) before them, and therefore the result snowballed. I contend that Register Ryan was likewise swayed by the judgments and has now added to the snowball effect. He suggested that I could seek a review if I was not happy with his decision:
So – and, look, you may – you may want to consider what you want to do with the decision that has been made, whether you want to seek a review, and that’s a matter for you[9].
Of course I am not happy to be robbed of justice yet again – but of what value would it be to seek a review? His failure to take my accusations seriously has further screwed me as far as justice goes, and what’s more, his Reasons would be used against me. Further, it is entirely possible that, just as he did at this hearing, Lionel would possibly give further fraudulent and misleading information in front of a review – and they take his word because he is deemed to be an honest officer of the court.
One of the issues in my affidavit was the prolific false testimony given under oath by two men who were now trying to force me into bankruptcy. I had provided prolific, clear and tangible proof, yet Ryan R said their lies under oath was not false testimony! (see the page: false testimony).
Ryan R stated:
What I propose to do – this is – there’s a lot of history in this matter and a lot of material which I have read but I need to consider this matter for a period today. So what I propose to do is to resume at 2 o’clock and then I will deliver a ruling in this matter, all right[10].
In spite of having admitted that there was a lot of material and lot of history, he spent just 3 hours and 14 minutes, some of which was hearing other cases and having lunch, in making a decision. One could conclude that he may have pre-judged the case and had possibly already made his decision.
So, Ryan R, just as the judges before him, excused and allowed these two men to lie under oath and actively misled and deceived the various courts – even when it provably swayed the judges and grossly perverted the course of justice. And to be handsomely and repeatedly rewarded for it – and Ryan R has further deliberately rewarded them for it. From this, it can easily be deduced that Ryan R believes that it is totally acceptable conduct in a court of law. This is further exemplified by Lionel telling Ryan R that I had not paid the majority of the money awarded to his clients for their fraudulent conduct, and Ryan R believing him. In fact, Ryan noted:
[Mr Green] made oral submissions which were of assistance[11].
Mr Green disputes the exact sum that has been paid to his clients by the applicant[12]
Lionel had told Ryan R at the hearing, as absolute and unequivocal fact, that [emphasis mine]:
Mr Green: That – yes, that’s so, Registrar. I just go to the main affidavit which is sworn the 23, the larger of the two affidavits, sworn the 23. At no stage – it talks about a claim of some $330,000, three – sorry, paragraph 11 on page 5 refers to damages of 351,361.26 already paid. Now, there’s no breakup of that amount.
Registrar Ryan: My understanding is that amount broadly is the amounts which [the applicant] has paid your clients by way of damages for the defamation claim together with statutory interest together with the costs of the Court of Appeal as taxed.
Mr Green: Well, I don’t think that’s correct, Registrar, in that the orders were for – the damages were twelve – sorry, 8000 and $12,000 respectively – – –
Registrar Ryan: Which were then increased in the Court of Appeal – – –
Mr Green: Right.
Registrar Ryan: – – – to 65 and $75,000.
Mr Green: Yes. Well – and there’s no – no other sums that have been paid to – – –
Registrar Ryan: Okay. Well, we should talk about that because that’s – that’s not what has been deposed by – – –
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: – – – by [her]. So [she] has deposed that she has paid your clients the damages that were awarded as increased by the Court of Appeal together with statutory interest and also she has paid the costs that were ordered and taxed in the Court of Appeal proceedings and I think they – she deposes in the sum of —
Mr Green: No, they – – –
Registrar Ryan: – – – say, $190,000.
Mr Green: They have not been taxed as yet, Registrar. They’re my instructions.
Registrar Ryan: All right. So you dispute that?
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: All right. All right.
Mr Green: Yes. The – – –
Registrar Ryan: I understand that. I – look, and, to some extent, it’s – it’s not critical. I think the sum of 351 to me – what’s required when you’re seeking to set aside a bankruptcy notice on the basis of a counterclaim, you need to satisfy the court not only that the claim is – is a genuine claim and has sufficient prospects of success but also that it’s for a sum which exceeds the amount in the judgment debt. Now, here we’ve got the judgment debt of $225,000 representing the costs that were taxed by Judicial Registrar Gourlay.
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: So I think what [she] is putting to the court is that her claim for fraud against your clients is for a quantum which exceeds the debt – – –
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: – – – $225,000 and would be at least for a sum representing the amount that she has already paid to your clients. My understanding is her claim is that, as a result of these – of the frauds, the alleged frauds, if they hadn’t have occurred then the various judgments at the various courts – the courts wouldn’t have been misled, allegedly, in the way that she claims and, as a result there wouldn’t – you wouldn’t have been – your clients wouldn’t have been successful in defamation and there wouldn’t have been the various costs orders. In addition to that, she seeks aggravated and compensatory damages – aggravated and exemplary damages.
Mr Green: Yes. Yes, Registrar.
Registrar Ryan: But you dispute that – you dispute that the – there’s a dispute about how much – – –
Mr Green: The quantum – – -
Registrar Ryan: – – – your client has been paid.
Mr Green: Yes.
Registrar Ryan: All right. I understand.[13]
Registrar Ryan: And I’ve noted that it’s disputed by Mr Green[14].
Simple logic tells you that if I had not paid every cent other than the amount under dispute in the bankruptcy proceedings, those other amounts (totalling many hundreds of thousands of dollars) would have been included in Lionel’s clients’ claims against me. This proved that Lionel deliberately misled Ryan R – and is further proved when challenged by me, by Lionel’s own admission to me later (outside of the hearing) that:
I have not been given complete instructions as to the amounts.
Whether or not he had instructions that the amounts were not paid, or if he was being “creative” he gave absolutely fraudulent submissions as absolute and unassailable fact. How can Lionel believe that it is right, proper and appropriate to lie to the Registrar about the amounts if he then admits that he didn’t know the truth.
Ryan R did admit that my application met one of the criteria – that of not having been able to have the matter heard before the court where the judgment was made:
Given that the judgment debt which founds the bankruptcy notice consists of an order made in a taxation proceeding, I am not satisfied that the applicant would have been able to set up her proposed counterclaim in that taxation proceeding before Judicial Registrar Gourlay[15].
Ryan R made the following misstatement:
A review of the applicant’s material and the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court disclose that the applicant has been agitating her allegations of fraud against the respondents repeatedly and consistently since the trial before Pagone J. [The applicant] submits that although she may have raised allegations concerning the respondents’ fraud in those proceedings, her claims in relation to those matters have never been specifically addressed and determined by a Court in discrete proceedings independent of the respondents’ defamation action and [the applicant]’s application under s29 of the CPA[16].
This comment could have been the result of Lionel’s deception where he told Ryan R as absolute fact, that I had been pleading fraud in the previous cases for 4-5 years – even though Lionel had not been involved in any of those cases and would not have known about it at all; he was thereby adding yet more fraud to his clients’ case. Having said that, Ryan R himself claimed that I admitted to having raised the allegations of fraud in other cases when I had not done so (I had used the words “fraudulent intention” a couple of times in my application under s29 of the CPA before McDonald J, but that was the sole reference to fraud), and I certainly had not submitted that I had done so, and my affidavit certainly did not make any such disclosures – because I had not done so. I therefore find Ryan R’s statement simply extraordinary since I had not “been agitating [my] allegations of fraud against the respondents repeatedly and consistently since the trial before Pagone J” at all – this was a gross exaggeration and, sadly, the snowball effect of his claim will continue to reverberate.
Ryan R mentioned that I had asked that the court “go behind” the judgment.
[The applicant] also argues urges the Court to go behind the judgment debt which provides the foundation of the bankruptcy notice on the basis that there is in truth and reality no such debt. … The Court has a discretion to go behind the judgment providing the foundation for a bankruptcy notice where reason is shown for questioning whether there was in truth and reality a debt due to the creditor: See Wren v Mahony (1972) 126 CLR 212; Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton (2017) 345 ALR 534. Such circumstances would include where there was a prima facie case of fraud or collusion or miscarriage of justice: See Corney v O’Brien (1951) 84 CLR 343. … In my view, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a sufficient reason to question whether there is in truth and reality a debt owing to the respondents pursuant to the order of Judicial Registrar Gourlay made on 25 August 2017[17].
I quoted 3 cases (and each of them quoted many other cases) where going behind was found to be proper and appropriate where fraud was even suspected. A further 10 cases (as well as two other authorities) were listed where it is proper and appropriate that a case be dismissed for fraud. All that was ignored by Ryan R, as was the proof of Lionel’s clients’ prolific fraud.
Ryan R stated unequivocally that [some citations omitted].
I am of the view that that her allegations against the respondents concerning their engagement in fraud and perjury consist of assertions which are not substantiated by any objective evidence[18].
I am not satisfied on the evidence and submissions of [the applicant] that her proposed counterclaim is of sufficient merit to warrant that it be heard and determined before any bankruptcy proceedings[19].
In my view, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a sufficient reason to question whether there is in truth and reality a debt owing to the respondents pursuant to the order of Judicial Registrar Gourlay made on 25 August 2017[20].
I have included pages on the website called “false testimony” and “fraudulent misrepresentations and negligent misstatements”, which provide just some of the false testimony and the fraudulent misrepresentations and negligent misstatements given by, or with the approval and authorisation of, Lionel’s clients which was exhibited in my affidavit – and therefore some of the conduct approved by Ryan R. In addition, inter alia:
- I have included a page on the website about the fraudulent letter dated 19 August 2011 where the Lionel’s clients had approved and authorised a letter denying things that were later admitted to, and they approved that letter being used for fraudulent purposes in the trial. The details of this fraudulent letter were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the fraudulent and appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to the fraudulence of the claims made against me in relation to defamation. The details of this fraudulent conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to the fact that Lionel’s clients had not taken the action against me for proper purposes, but had lacked bona fides, had not acted in good faith, had ulterior motives and had acted in a unjustifiable and unreasonable manner. The details of this fraudulent conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to the fact of being caught by surprise by Lionel’s clients’ conduct and the issues they raised in court without warning of those matters and without having been pleaded them. The details of this appalling conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the inexcusable conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to Lionel’s clients’ attempts to repeatedly and deliberately intimidate and harass me. The details of this inexcusable conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to Lionel’s clients having repeatedly and deliberately defamed and belittled me. The details of this fraudulent and inexcusable conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to Lionel’s clients’ deliberate delay in particularising their complaints and their use of their own delay to garner significant awards against me. The details of this inexcusable and fraudulent conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to the fraudulence of Lionel’s clients’ submissions about the offers of compromise. The details of this inexcusable conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to the fraudulence of Lionel’s clients’ claims that my previous website was false, entirely false, without foundation and was baseless. The details of this inexcusable conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to the fraudulence of Lionel’s clients’ claims about my apology. The details of this fraudulent and inexcusable conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
- I have included a page on the website in relation to the fraudulence of Lionel’s clients’ claims about the number of statements of claim. The details of this fraudulent and inexcusable conduct were included in my affidavit, which proves just some of the appalling conduct that is approved by Ryan R.
Read those pages for yourself and you will see how Ryan R approved conduct that was fraudulent and appalling – the difference between what you read and what he read is the proof (letters, documents, transcript pages and the like, all proving my allegations), all exhibited in my affidavit and encompassing in excess of 900 pages – so he had the clear proof in his hands.
It is interesting to note that Ryan R specifically identified that:
The applicant claims that the respondents were aware she was not capable of paying the debt at the time of the issuing of the bankruptcy notice and accordingly, it can be concluded that the respondents have issued the notice for an improper purpose[21].
He then concurs with me by making the observation that
An awareness by the respondents that the applicant may be insolvent supports the conclusion that they were intending to invoke the insolvency jurisdiction of the Court rather than for some other purpose such as debt recovery[22].
i.e. this confirms that he knows that they are not after the money, but are after grinding me into the ground by making me insolvent (bankrupt) with all the long-term implications that will entail. Their ill-will, ulterior motives, and unjustifiable and unreasonable conduct continues on and on; and even with recognition of that conduct: The courts. Do. Nothing.
Just as his clients refused to face the facts and reality of their fraud, Lionel has taken a stand against me taking them on for fraud. He did this by putting in Registrar Ryan’s mind that I was a vexatious litigant:
[I]f the applicant were to issue such proceedings she may well be labelled a vexatious litigant[23]
This was also an attempt to intimidate me by making it clear that if I took further action against them to try to right the wrongs, they would be claiming that I was a vexatious litigant. So much for him upholding justice and the truth as an officer of the court.
I fold Ryan R about not being vexatious:
As far as being a vexatious litigant, I’ve been – to go back to the VCAT hearings, that was in result of the fact that Mr Green’s clients weren’t doing what they were supposed to be doing. We’re stuck on a property that is being bombarded by noise, by dust. They stole our water. They dug a hole and the water that used to come onto our place that we relied on went underground. And we’re frustrated, we’re anxious, we’re depressed and we’re forced into a fight because they didn’t want to buy us. They said that they would and then we kept offering to say, “Look, well, buy us out and we’re gone.” But, “No, no. We would rather fight you,” they said – well, [man X] said that. And that proved immensely true. But then they used the letters against us to say we were trying to stop the quarry. We just wanted to stop the noise and the dust and – just buy us out and let us go and we will be right because nobody else wanted to buy it. And even when we did put it on the market finally, we were in a situation where we lost $365,000 of value because of what they were doing. So that’s the background. And then I put it all up on the web and then they said, “You’ve defamed us.” I had a legal team at the beginning who refused to use any of the defences. And I’m saying, “I can prove everything I’ve said.” And they wouldn’t even give me the defence of, “It was my opinion,” let alone anything else. So I’m stuck in a – between a rock and a hard place. And consequently I got a defamation determination against me. And then I appealed, they appealed. And I tried to say, “Well, their conduct under section 29 of the Civil Procedure Act was deplorable because they lied,” but everybody is sort of saying, “Here’s this horrible person who has defamed these poor men,” and everybody turns their back on me because these poor men, who lied under oath provably, you know, they’re the – they’re the victims, not us. Not me, not my husband. I mean, we’ve now got nothing. We were relatively well off and we’ve now got absolutely nothing[24].
We certainly have to take into account the snowball effect. Ryan R himself noted that
In 2008, the applicant and a company operated by the applicant, commenced proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) seeking to challenge the granting of a planning permit to the respondents’ company for the operation of the quarry[25]. These proceedings were unsuccessful. … On 23 May 2013, Pagone J found in the Supreme Court of Victoria that the applicant had defamed the respondents by the inclusion of words on a website created by the applicant including statements to the effect that the respondents had perjured themselves when giving evidence in the VCAT proceedings. His Honour ordered the applicant to pay damages in the amount of $12,000 to the first respondent and $8,000 to the second respondent together with an order that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings. … On 24 April 2015, the Court of Appeal refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal against the costs order made by Pagone J. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeal on quantum and set aside the damages awarded by Pagone J and ordered $75,000 in favour of the first respondent and $65,000 in favour of the second respondent. … On 5 February 2016, McDonald J dismissed applications by [the applicant] seeking costs orders against the respondents and relief under s29 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)(CPA) in relation to the respondents’ conduct of the defamation proceeding before Pagone J (including allegations that the respondents had lied on oath). McDonald J also ordered that Pagone J’s costs order against the applicant be amended to provide that those costs be paid, to a large extent, on an indemnity basis. On 11 March 2016, McDonald J ordered that the applicant should pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings before him on an indemnity basis. … On 14 December 2016, the Court of Appeal refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal against the orders made by McDonald J and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs. … On 17 May 2017, the applicant filed applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against the orders of the Court of Appeal. … On 20 June 2017, the Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s application for a stay of the orders of McDonald J made on 11 March 2016 and the Court of Appeal made on 14 December 2016, pending the hearing and determination of the High Court applications, and ordered that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application. … On 12 September 2017, [the applicant]’s applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court were dismissed[26].
The majority of the applicant’s claims also appear to have been considered and rejected by McDonald J and the Court of Appeal in their Honours’ reasons for judgment on the applicant’s application under s29 of the CPA and subsequent appeal[27].
Ryan R clearly spent considerable time reading the previous judgements and, I contend, in being swayed by them – hence the snowball effect. If Ryan R had read the information in my affidavit fully as implied by him, then he absolutely believes that the other side’s prolific use of false testimony, fraudulent misrepresentations and negligent misstatements (all given to the courts as unassailable fact) are completely and absolutely acceptable and appropriate. If he was to now claim that he didn’t read the affidavit properly and if he now admitted that Lionel’s clients’ conduct is unacceptable, then he would be admitting that his existing decision was a travesty of justice and an abuse of court by a Registrar. Either way, it is my considered opinion that he loses in a very big way – but that is the danger of taking others’ word for things instead of actually investigating it for yourself.
[1] TP2:13-16 (30 January 2018)
[2] TP2:25-28 (30 January 2018)
[3] TP3:20 (30 January 2018)
[4] Pages 3 & 4 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[5] Ibid, Page 5
[6] TP2:27-28 (30 January 2018)
[7] TP6:6-27 (30 January 2018)
[8] TP8:34 (30 January 2018)
[9] TP16:10-12 (30 January 2018)
[10] TP15:12-15 (30 January 2018)
[11] Page 2 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[12] Ibid, Page 3
[13] TP9:31–TP10:16 (30 January 2018)
[14] TP13:7 (30 January 2018)
[15] Page 3 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[16] Ibid, Pages 3 & 4
[17] Ibid, Page 4
[18] Pages 3 & 4 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018 – this is in spite of some 900 pages of evidence including letters, documents and transcript pages
[19] Ibid, Page 4
[20] Ibid, Page 4
[21] Page 5 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[22] Ibid, Page 5
[23] TP9:13-14 (30 January 2018)
[24] TP14:1-27 (30 January 2018)
[25] Again, I have to take umbrage at this given that my company and I were only two of 28 parties who took Lionel’s clients to VCAT to fight the permit! How very selective and makes it look as if I have personally been taking them on since 2008.
[26] Page 1 of Ryan R’s un-paginated and unnumbered Reasons dated 30 January 2018
[27] Ibid, Pages 3 & 4