MORISSET MEGA-MARKET PTY. LIMITED & ANOR v. GARGAN [2003] NSWSC 1199

MORISSET MEGA-MARKET PTY. LIMITED & ANOR v. GARGAN [2003] NSWSC 1199

Neither count of the information disclosed an offence known to law. The second count was barred by the principle in Jamison & Brookmans because it treated conduct in court by a party and legal representative as obtaining property by deception. The first count failed because the regular use of court processes, including seeking to strike out incompetent proceedings, did not amount to an offence against the administration of justice, and the first defendant's asserted Federal status and rights were legally baseless. The information did not comply with the Justices Act 1902, was invalid, was issued for an extraneous financial purpose, and was an abuse of process; therefore the information...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings for Relief in the Nature of Certiorari, Prohibition, Declarations and Stay / Supreme Court Review of a Private Information and Consequential Local Court Summons
Outcome
Information and summons quashed.
Legal Topics
['private Information' 'summary Proceedings' 'certiorari' 'prohibition' 'abuse of Process' 'offences Known to Law' "judicial Review of Justice's Decision"]
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['private Information' 'summary Proceedings' 'certiorari' 'prohibition' 'abuse of Process' 'offences Known to Law' "judicial Review of Justice's Decision"]

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings for Relief in the Nature of Certiorari, Prohibition, Declarations and Stay / Supreme Court Review of a Private Information and Consequential Local Court Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the information laid by the first defendant alleged offences known to the law under s.43 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and s.134.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether the information complied with the requirements of the Justices Act 1902 as then in force.' 'Whether the laying of the information and issue of the summons were an abuse of process.' 'Whether the Supreme Court should quash the information and summons.']

Ratio Decidendi

Neither count of the information disclosed an offence known to law. The second count was barred by the principle in Jamison & Brookmans because it treated conduct in court by a party and legal representative as obtaining property by deception. The first count failed because the regular use of court processes, including seeking to strike out incompetent proceedings, did not amount to an offence against the administration of justice, and the first defendant's asserted Federal status and rights were legally baseless. The information did not comply with the Justices Act 1902, was invalid, was issued for an extraneous financial purpose, and was an abuse of process; therefore the information...

Court Disposition

Information and summons quashed.

Orders

  • ['The information laid by the first defendant before the second defendant on 16 September 2002 is quashed.' 'The summons issued by the second defendant to the plaintiffs dated 16 September 2002 is quashed.' "The plaintiffs may have the matter re-listed by arrangement with the judge's associate for consideration of...