|
|
 |
|
|
|
| UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
CALLAGHAN CAMPUS NSW AUSTRALIA | |
|
I
INJURY |
|
In late 1998 I have raised the issue within Dep of Swrk related to the incident with Ms Flynn that left me traumatized. Despite what she did to me I have passed the 1st Placement at Royal Newcastle Hospital
and my report was very good one |
|
Half year later on my 2nd placement
the full impact of what Ms Flynn did to me emerged and my placement at Centrelink was terminated. Dep. of Swrk realized that the interaction with Ms Flynn had serious impact on me. |
|
In August ’99, the Director
of University Counseling Service, Ms Bryant, who holds Master degree in Social Work told me that experience with Ms Flynn,
is traumatic and I am left with PTSD. Having 29 years of experience in counseling,
her opinion on my request was passed to DVC English. This information was hand
over in strict confidence 16 Aug 1999 only to DVC English |
|
In August 99 the following staff
knew about my disability: Ms Bryant – Director of University Counseling Service Prof. Foreman, The Dean of Students
Prof English the DVC Ms Amie Grierson, President of Uni Student Association (NUSA) |
|
The same day this confidential information was forward from the Chancellery to the Dep. of Social Work. It was passed without my approval and knowledge. This information
was hand over in strict confidence to the staff of Swrk Dep. From August ’99
lecturer in Dep. of SWRK: knew that I was student with disability. Those lecturers
are Ms Jo Gaha (Head of SWRK Dep.) Ms Leanne Flynn, Ms Kate Baker, Ms
Alison Rowlands, Ms
Jill Gibbons and Ms Debbie Plath Ms Plath is a social worker, lecturer and was my Liaison Person at Centrelink Placement. In 1999 she was the Director of University Disability Service
Despite all the skills she was not able to noticed any single student
who was abused and traumatized. What an expert. |
|
Apart from working together in Dep.
of Swrk Ms Gaha, Ms Flynn and Ms Baker were the highest body within Australian Association of Social Workers. In ‘99 their positions were: Ms Jo Gaha The President of AASW, who wrote defamatory
letter about me. Ms Leanne Flynn The Director of AASW who is responsible for my disability (PTSD) Ms Kate Baker The Ethical Director of AASW, She made Gosford Placemen
extremely stressful in an effort to make me leave and protect Ms Flynn for taking any responsibility. 13 JAN 2001 I asked police for (the first) protection order |
| II UNI RESPONSE TO
INJURY AND GRIEVANCES 1998 - 2000 | |
|
After receiving information about PTSD JO GAHA setup the meeteng. The meeting was conveyed at Dep. Of Swrk. To my knowledge the meeteng attended former Head of Social Work (now current Deputy Vice
Chancellor Prof of SWRK Brian English, Jo Gaha and the rest of the lecturers in Department of Social Work. ALL
of them were in the highest positions at AASW and all of them members of AASW. It was collective decision that
I should be removed and Swrk clear of any wrongdoing. It took Social Work Dep.
just 10 days to come up with solution that will save reputation of Unit and destroy my family and me. There were numerous options of how this information should be given to VC (1) Confidential meeting with
the VC, (2) Letter marked confidential (3) phone call between Jo Gaha and the VC However, the option was defamatory email
sent on 26 August 1999 from Jo Gaha to VC Roger Holmes. The decision was; I shouldnt be
seen as a student who was abused that resulted in disability, I should be seen as "crazy" someone dangerous to come close and talk to. |
|
Information was pass very publicly as the aim was to label me and make me silent.
It was sent to reach as much staff at the
Chancellery as possible. The decision was email communication, as it was ‘open email’ sent to secretaries who would
print and read it than file with the rest of the mail. To make it extremely damaging
for my reputation, under the SUBJECT was my full first and last name. The only
other person with this surname was my husband who works in the University. This
decision has destroyed both of us. At that time the Policy at Newcastle University
was that the email communication is the document that University can hold on. Even
under FoIA you would not have an access to the email. Jo Gaha was heavily counted
on this Policy. Until I had an email in my possession I could not understand
behavior of the staff I worked with in the University. Some of them avoided me;
some of them would ask my husband “Is your wife ok?” For victims
like myself that was serious warning; Put up with abuse and be silent or what’s happen to Vesna will happen to you too.! |
|
For not being immediately aware
of this defamatory statement, I raised complain through the Grievance, with the Chancellery, seeking opportunity to complete
my placement, as it was clear that I fail due to abusive approach of Ms Flynn. I
was hoping that we will solve the issue between us and I will receive the help I was entitled to (free counseling to overcome
trauma, assistance with my disability PTSD and anything that would help me to finish my degree) Unfortunately, Dep. of Swrk
could not take responsibility (how possibly student can be abused by lecturer who is a social worker and is an expert in counseling
Trauma victims). |
|
2 years my case was in the hands of the VC (the Chancellery) and the Grievance Team.
University breached every Policy related to- Duty of care towards student with disability- Grievance Procedure- Policy
related to discrimination and victimization- Policy related to Grievance Time. In
the same time Ms Jo Gaha did everything to make me leave
I asked Grievance Team to request that the University respond in written form to my allegation. University had 2 years to respond. University refused to respond and Grievance could not make Jo Gaha to respond. VC and
DVC supported Swrk with this decision. If Policy related to student grievance were obeyed I would hand in this matter to ADB
in 1999. The only thing Grievance had power to do was to put in writing what they found, and the Policy in Uni at that time
was that Grievance findings and instruction nobody could overturn. On 16th January 2000 decision was given to DVC Brian English
who on 28 January 2000 overturned the final decision to protect Jo Gaha. |
|
The UNIVERSITY of NEWCASTLE16 January 2000
Report
of the investigation
into the CENTRELINK GRIEVANCE by Ms V S against
the Department of Social Work
1.1
A grievance enquiry team was convened to deal with a grievance raised by Ms Vesna Simundic against the department of
social work, concerning Ms Simundic's failure in SWRK303. The team consists of
Simon (chair), Loris Chahl, and Gail White.
read
the full report
4.6.2
The team believes that Prof Ramsland was misled by Ms Gaha's reply, and should have stood by his request.
Ms Simundic's placement did not run to completion because her field educator asked her to leave. It requires
no subtle twist of semantics to see this as the placement being terminated.
Indeed, in the field educator's report, Ms Sampson wrote 'I terminated the placement 15/6/99 due to my
lack of trust in Vesna's ability to act in an ethical manner specifically in the area of confidentiality.'
It is the team's interpretation that the placement was terminated in response to the
email, and that the fail result was determined after, and essentially because
of, the termination. Ms Gaha appears
to have been incorrect when she wrote 'Ms Simundic's placement was not terminated'. |
|
I became aware that my complaint
against Dep. Of SWRK was not isolated case and sharing with my friends I realized
I was one of many students who complained - but was only one who refused to put up with abuse or give up and quit social work. |
|
When it was clearly put across to
me: that I will not receive help from the people responsible, and for being affected by PTSD - I am not welcome anymore, that
I am burden and have to be removed I asked the University to find me an employment.
Not just that they did not wished to help me; the Chancellery instructed everybody to ignore me. |
|
For
not understanding the legal system of my country (I am Australian Citizen from ‘91 who migrated in ‘89) I have
followed advice of the lecturer at Newcastle University who sow my case firstly as clear example of victimization and discrimination. Those two areas are his expertise and he had spend years educating students
and raise awareness to prevent discrimination at least in the University. In
the same time every lecturer and student who knew me told me the same |
| III RESPONSE FROM ADB CHRIS
PUPLICK 2000 - 2003 | |
|
I
lodge my case with ADB at Newcastle Office; firstly because it was free service, and it was based on the Policy: “In
the time frame of 3-6 months I would know the prospect of my case and be advised where to go further if issue was not solved”. Secondly to make Dep. of Swrk aware that I know my rights, that I am not like the
rest of the students who will put up with abuse just for the sake of completing this degree.
Finally, that I expect them to take responsibility for what they did. At
that point I did not wish anything else. |
|
However,
former President Mr. Puplick breached this Policy. His ‘constant support’
and his confirmation that my case is discrimination indeed were in contrast of what I had received from his staff. Ms Jackson did not wish to pursue this case. I realized that
Mr. Puplick intention was to hold my case as long as possible. He could not dismiss
my case due to overwhelming evidence I have included, so he did his best to make me give up.
|
|
I lodge my 1st complain to
the complaining officer at ADB in Sydney. The 1st complain against Kay Jackson
was not taken seriously. I asked ADB to request that the University respond in
written form. University had 3 years to respond.
University refused to respond and Mr. Puplick supported University with this decision I was told to be patient. If Policy in ADB were obeyed my case would be resolved in few months. I would lodge my matter to ADT in 2000. |
|
Mr.
Puplick realize that I would not withdraw my case so he instructed his staff to ignore me, move my case from Newcastle Office
to Wollongong Branch. When this did not work the way he thought he put my name
on his email- blocker list. All of this was in an effort to force me to accept
“settlement” put forward by the University and withdraw my Complain. I
was instructed to accept ‘Fair Modicum’. As I did not know what kind
of “Fair Modicum” University wished me to accept, (they refused to settle with my offer) I told ADB that I would
accept University offer after I examine the document. I was given Settlement
proposal, compensation-offer of $10.000 and was told to sign. |
|
I
could not accept this offer, as this amount of money could not even cover my HECS. I
told that to ADB. The staff from ADB had contacted me by phone. I was explained that in my best interest is to sign this, as my case is Out of Time, I will not receive
any compensation at all, so: “Better anything that nothing.” I told
ADB that I would not sign anything I feel uncomfortable about and I requested that my matter be forward to ADT. At this point I was faced with angry response:”Fine, than you go ahead with what you think is best
for you.” |
|
That
the same week (August 2002) I have received the letter from ADB and was informed that the Bonella Decision (that has nothing
with my case) is now barrier for my case to proceed anywhere else. It was further
7 months of victimization; my emails were ignored or put on the blocker list. My
case was in ADB at Wollongong office and everybody advised me to”: complain
to Mr. Puplick”. Finally in March 2003 I was given contact details of people
who had reputation of being respectable employee and not afraid to address injustice.
I objected for the second time to ADB and handed in evidence. |
|
After
my second complain the evidence was examined and taken seriously. Finally Mr.
Puplick was confronted and asked to explain his actions. I was told that Mr. Puplick had resigned. The resignation, publicly, took place the same week. I read in newspaper that NSW Ombudsman Mr. Barbour investigated and published cases
that Mr. Puplick was accused of not handling appropriately as the reason behind his resignation. In public his resignation was ‘justified’ with other cases.
My matter was not mention. |
|
Mr.
Puplick’s last involvement in my case I sow as disgraceful one; the documents hand over to ADT were submitted in disjoint
form; the most important papers were hidden away, insignificant emails and letters were copied 2, 3 times and submitted to
make my folder bigger and harder for ADT to understand. On top of 3 lost years I had to seek an extra time, find the solicitor who would not charge me and put together again all the documents with appropriate
affidavit. |
|
I
see Mr. Chris Puplick 100% responsible for those 3 lost years that ruined my life. My
health deteriorated to the point that I have to leave my degree. My very stable
life as a mother of 2 children and a wife started to break up. All this delay
put an extreme pressure on my marriage. My husband filled for divorce. |
| IV POLICY ON PERSONAL
INJURY WAS CHANGED | |
|
During
those 3 years I have contacted Mr. Bob Carr and handed in evidence related the way students are treated in dep. of Social
Work. All the cases were related to personal injury. Premier of NSW was very well aware of the way students are treated.
He did not do anything for any of us. However, Mr. Bob Carr had changed
the Policy regardless the Personal Injury. |
|
|
|
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS |
|
During
divorce my husband took the defamatory letter written by Jo Gaha and on the basis of what she wrote (labeling me as dangerous
and abusive) he requested custody of both of children. That moment was the lowest
point in my life and I do not have appropriate words to explain how embarrass me was in that Court Room when the letter was
read. I took the most expensive Barrister to help me at least have minimum contact
with my younger daughter. My divorce proceedings, proceedings at ADB and ADT
came all together in the same time. All of this had an enormous impact on my
two children. They will deal with the consequences of divorce till rest of their
lives. |
|
The
Barrister Mr. McFadden, who presented me, requested the affidavit from Specialist / Psychiatrist dr. Chenoweth. First request was to explain to Court was I ever violent, “clinically disturbed” abusive in
nature or towards my children, my husband or anybody else. Mr. McFadden asked
for psychiatrist professional opinion based on the time he first sow me until our last counseling session 10 years ago. Response: 31/3/03 |
|
Than
Mr. McFadden made an appointment and went to interview my GP in relationship with the incident at Ms Flynn office Response:
20/8/03. He also arranged long appointment, for me, with Psychiatrist Response:
20/8/03 |
|
All
those documents and my medical files were subpoenaed on request of Uni Legal Unit and were available to Mr. Rice due ADT Proceedings. None of this was mention or published in Mr. Rice’s Decision published on ADT
web page. |
|
|
|
In
the same time (from 2000 - 2003) I have contacted every agency within the Government in NSW seeking friendly advice, professional
advice, Legal advice, Legal options, referral to any institution or solicitor who would sit with me to explain what my rights
are. To all of them I explained my situation, financial position, disability,
marriage difficulties, and Mr. Puplick’s unprofessional approach. I was
turned down by every agency included District Court, as well as the Supreme Court. When
that did not work I decide to seek help from other Universities, from social workers and the Vice Chancellors. The reply from the each of Australian States was the same; “this may well be a state issue”
and “it was duty of NSW, duty of Att General Hon. Mr. Bob Debus to do something.”
Nobody could believe that what we received was only neglect and abuse of power at all levels. |
|
If
all those institutions had taken my case seriously and investigation of systematic abuse of students within department of
social work examined thoroughly it might be possible that Plagiarism Scandal would never take the place. The people involved in Educational Dishonor that had shaken Australian Educational Reputation worth 5 billion
might never happen. The same people responsible for Plagiarism are people involved
in Dep. of Swrk Affairs. |
|
Although I have paid the highest price, I am proud
for being brave to raise this issue. Interest of my country was my first duty. My health and my family came on second place.
I have never thought that the system of NSW would punish me for that. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
JO GAHA |
VC HOLMES |
MS SOLICITOR |
CHRIS PUPLICK |
SIMON RICE |
NSW OMBY |
BOB DEBUS |
DPP COWDERY | |
| |
|
|
|
|
Case lodged in 2000 case closed in 2003
ICAC SERVICE 04 NOV 10th Mr.
PUPLICK service |
|
Mr. Puplick and Mr. Barbour had an enormous help from NSW Att Gen Mr. BOB DEBUS. All complains against anybody from NSW Gov would finish on Hon Mr. Debus desk.
Anyone I complain about would reply that the matter concerns jurisdiction of Att Gen's department Despite
this from '00 until my last hearing in federal court '07 I received only one response. "I
do not have jurisdiction to be involved in your matter" that followed with public response
(after Mr Rice published defamatory statement on ADT website); "In case if you are defamed,
you do not need compensation, all you need is the truth…THE TRUTH IS STAND ALONE DEFENCE |
|
almost all about Chris Puplick in WIKIPEDIA. The fact that he
was President of ADB is removed !!!!! |
|
|
|
My case was forward to ADT but my accusation against Mr Puplick were sent to OMBUDSMAN OFFICE for an investigation.
Mr Debus was informed as well. Mr. Puplick's resignation had to be justify in a way that wouldn't give ME any reason to seek
any compensation or to think that this has anything to do with Mr. Puplick's crime towards my family. It had to be done professionally
so the job was given to NSW Ombudsman Mr. Barbour. Once - when media asked Mr. Barbour how he would describe himself his response
was "Committed to the Truth" This must be the reason why this matter was given to him. This is the outcome of a very painstaking
investigation, that despite being confidential somehow - (nobody knows how) had leaked to the media |
|
Mr.BARBOUR
MEDIA COVERIGE Nick O'Mailey Sydney Morning Herald /
May 3 2003 Puplick quits after claims of favours |
| CRIME PREVENTION DIVISION | |
|
Despite clear evidence of what Mr Puplick did NSW Omby didnt wish to
take any responsibility, nor admitt that his Gov did anything wrong. His last response was in an email form Subject-Your email message was blocked |
|
Mr Puplick and Mr Barbour had an enormous help from NSW Att Gen Mr BOB DEBUS.
All my complains against anybody from NSW Gov would finish on Hon Mr Debus's desk. Anyone I complain about would reply that
the matter concerns juridiction of Att Gen's department Despite this from '00 until my last hearing in federal court '07 I received
only one response. "I do not have juridistiction to be involved in your matter" that followed with
public response (after Mr Rice published defamatory statement on ADT website); "In case if you are defamed, you do not
need compensation, all you need is the truth…THE TRUTH IS STAND ALONE DEFENCE" |
|
REST OF NSW ACTED THE SAME. IT WAS NEGLECT AND REJECTION AT EVERY LEVEL OF THE GOVERNMENT |
|
|
|
Despite number of complains to the Prime Miniter Mr HOWARD, Mr RICE succeeded
to stretch 4 hearings over 18 months, I made number of complains to ADT staff, nobody took my complains seriously. Not even
ICAC In the same time Ms BEACH was given freedom to behave however
she wanted. Culmination of her unprofessionalism was her email sent to me with evidence where she and Mr Rice were discussing
my case using his private email. I forward evidence to ADT President JUDGE O'CONNOR
and J HENNESSY. Even this didnt attract response I would expect from any court in any country in the world. Only person who
took my complain seriously was Mr RICE… and he didnt like it. When he published his decision at the ADT website I was
greatly distressed. He couldn’t even make it correct who attended the hearing, to start with. The fact that judicial
authority could lie publicly and defame victim of crime was difficult to accept. Yet, that was exactly what NSW legal system
forced me to do. |
|
From: <Sue.Beach@newcastle.edu.au>
To: srice@zip.com.au CC: VS
Date: Thu 03/11/04 09:27
PM
Subject: Transcript and Submission
Dear Mr Rice,
I contacted the Registrar today regarding the date by which the University's written submission is due in the thematter
of Simundic v University of NewcastleThe reason for seeking the information is that the University obtained the transcipts
of proceedings of 12 and 13 February 2004 on disks from the Registrar's office and sent the disks to a transcript typing service.
|
|
The 12 February record was received here earlier this week, but the typed transcript of
the 13 February 2004 proceedings has not yet been finalised and I do not expect to receive it until early next week. The due
date for the submission by the University was given by you at the end of proceedings on 13 February and my notes indicate
that the date was 4 weeks from the conclusion of proceedings, being today.However, I do not have the typed record containing
the oral submission, from which the written submission will follow and seek your agreement to an extension of one week to
provide the written submission. I have copied this to the Applicant. Yours sincerely, Susan Beach, Director - Division &
Legal Unit Solicitor, University of Newcastle |
| Dear ADT Registrar |
|
My understanding was that after the last meeting held at the ADT, my case is finished (indeed Mr. Rice told
me the same) and I am awaiting the decision made by Mr. Rice However the email I had received today from Ms Beach is clearly
provocative. I am not surprised by the University action- however I am surprised that ADT allows University to continue with
unprofessional behavior. I have a letter in my possession (I believe you have a copy of the same) where is clearly explained
that any contact from either party to ADT SHOULD be directed to the Registrar only (the policy I respect). I do not understand
how Uni;s allow to contact Mr. Rice on his private email, not even using his email-address at ADT and seeking bizarre requests.
Indeed if the Policy is that neither party should have personal contacts with the Judge than how University obtained Mr Rice
personal email? University was asked and refuses to provide any affidavits during the Hearings. I do not understand what kind
of response they need to provide now? May I have your written response regardless my concerns?
Thank you , Vesna |
|
|
|
|
I believe that Ms Beach thought that I would spend next 14
months in debate with Mr. Rice trying to correct defamation published. It was clear that they wanted me to Appeal but I saw
this act very calculated and their vigor to make me do that resulted in my decision to move my issue to the Supreme Court,
and I did in September 04 |
| PHILLIPS
FOX ELIZABETH STREET SYDNEY NSW | |
|
As this case was impossible to win University had acted quickly and their choice
was the best and the largest legal firm in Australia known as Phillips Fox. Those Legal experts were well known for their
strong connection with the Supreme Court Judges and their 'feel like at home' approach towards confidential legal documents
held in Supreme Court |
|
Decision
of Phillips Fox legal-experts was not to settle this case under any 'reasonable agreement' and until last day their offer
did not exceed $40.000, but to WIN. The only way to do that was to use their Government connection and change the policies
related to my case. So, the following month, in November ‘04 Mr. Bob Debus put the proposal that the Policy related
to Defamation should be changed and people affected by defamation should not receive huge financial settlements. Mr. Bob Debus
stated: “The truth is stand-alone defense” |
|
I
found this to be the truth however complains about incorrect statement that was published on ADT web page was sent to PM Mr.
Howard. PM Mr. Howard sent complain to Premier Mr. Carr who responded to me that my matter was forward to the Att General
of NSW Hon. Mr. Bob Debus ‘and his understanding was that Mr. Debus knew about Mr. Rice’s defamatory Judgment
published.’ |
|
So
I was not surprised to realized from the very beginning that Phillips Fox will win, no matter what costs or methods. Reputation
of the company was the issue. They knew that the Chief Judge Hon SPIGELMAN would allow what ever it takes to assist them.
Registrars, Master Harrison and J James would delay case for years, Meegan Greenwood was in charge of Registry so what ever
I submitted she would retype and submit as mine. |
|
The first team, Lynch, Martin and Counsel Mr. Robert Glasson were removed after I caught
them in stealing my documents. Barrister were instructed to return later and act like 'Nothing's happen' but had never fully
recover from this public humiliation. Around this time Phillips Fox change its name to DLA Phillips Fox, their website had
a 'facelift' and name of Ms Rebecca Lynch and Mr. Hayden Martin disappear into thin air. I received an email advising me that
the new Team will takeover Uni matter Second Team were even more interesting. There were so many of them, FORENSIC barrister
Mr. Zahra, Barrister without name, Solicitor Jasmina Price and high profile Solicitor Mr. Robert Crittenden who has acted in liability and insurance cases. However the case that shot him
to fame and brought International celebrity status was my case with University of Newcastle |
| PHILLIPS
FOX TURNED INTO DLA PHILLIPS FOX | |
|
But it gets better. After I published my website” The Truth" Sydney-Foxes didn’t
know what to do. It was public humiliation, scandal, and reputation in danger... Naughty PhillipsFox couldn’t come up
with anything better than to join forces with the giant DLA PIPER, the biggest and one of the most
powerful world-legal-firms, so their name wasn’t PHILLIPS FOX anymore - it turn into DLA
PhillipsFox. Very smart. So my website, my allegation were against Phillips Fox but this firm is now DLA... Naughty Foxes.
I understood their situation and thought at least now we can come to some agreement- It was clear the case cant be won, jury
is not allow to enter the courtroom, Foxes strategy was stealing, lying, perverting the justice. Is Uni of Newcastle really
that much worth? So I asked for mediation, was happy to hear their offer of settlement. I thought those people would come
to their senses. |
| MEDIATION
- OFFER OF SETTLEMENT MR ROBERT CRITTENDEN | |
|
I thought I know this legal firm and theres nothing else to surprise me... Or I thought so..
But this mediation was shock. I really come to know Foxes ideology; their self-distractive behavior, attitude, capacity for
the problem solving... and the people who work there. ... to put the 'small case' (in legal terms - when you consider whos
involved) in front of the company reputation... Dear, dear... Even this opportunity
Foxes blowup. |
|
I don't have any respect towards DLA Phillips-Fox I cannot imagine that this Firm would continue
with the Hearings nor I can accept that there is no Policy to protect Victims from such injustice. Legal firm that breached
the Law does not have credibility to stand in front of the Judge and the Jury. Their argument / response as such is not valued
and credible to the extent that it should be given an opportunity to continue with this process. |
| DLA
PHILLIPS FOX IS ACCUSED OF | |
|
*REFUSAL TO ACT ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF LAW
*CRIMES: STEALING FROM REGISTRY, LYING
UNDER THE OATH,
*ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF CORRUPT JUDGES
INVOLVED IN MY CASE
*ACCESS TO MY FAMILY DOCUMENTS WITHOUT GIVEN ORDER
*TAMPERING WITH THE DOCUMENTS; RE-TYPED
AND SUBMITTED AS MINE
*PHILLIPS FOX TOTALLY DESTROYED REPUTATION
OF DLA PIPER, SUPREME COURT AND AUSTRALIAN LEGAL SYSTEM
*THEY ARE THE REASON WHY SO MANY CITIZENS REFUSE
TO GO TO SUPREME COURT
*BEING PART OF NSW JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
*EMOTIONAL ABUSE OF MY DAUGHTER AND
ME
*THE REASON WHY MY DAUGHTER LIVES WITH HER FATHER
FOR THE LAST 3 YEARS
*REASON FOR MY FINANCIAL COLLAPSE
*FURTHER DETERIORATION OF MY HEALTH
*UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF MY WEBSITE - THREE TIMES -
*REFUSAL TO TAKE
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS ME AFTER I LODGED STATEMENT OF CLAIM IN FEDERAL COURT |
| ASS
JUSTICE JOANNE RUTH HARRISON - 2 YEARS | |
|
Ass J Joanne Ruth Harrison had left me in belief that SHE is the one in charge of decision
re extension of time. Only after 12 months when I refuse to attend more ‘Directions’
or ‘Occasions’ she directed my case to the Registrar telling me that he is the one who will decide ‘extension’
issue. She appeared to enjoy this game of ‘power’ and at times when I complain about the process she would laugh
at me. I did not have any say nor my opinion was taken into consideration |
|
On May 25th '05 I filed Notice of Motion seeking Trial with the Judge and the Jury. I asked
Ass Justice to request written response from Uni and Ass Justice Harrison promised that the University would respond. Every
2 months Phillips Fox asked for 2 months more to prepare Response and every time Master Harrison went along with this game.
Up until the day of the Hearing in 2006 University refused to respond. I asked the Registrar to request reply from Phillip-Fox
at least to Defamation. I receive the letter from Philip-Fox where I am told that they refused to respond. |
|
| HEARINGS - EVIDENCE FROM REGISTRY |
| HEARING SUBMITTED BY JUSTICE HARRISON my language was ridiculed |
| REQUEST FOR JURY - Justice Harrison stated : I did not see request" |
| DECISION PUBLISHED | In the same time I was instructed
by ADB, ADT and the Supreme Court to present all the documents, complaints, and everything else that supports my case and
hand in. All those documents are available to Defendant. The Legal System: ADB, ADT and the Supreme Court had given University
8 years of precious time to think how to respond on every single complaint I have made. Phillips Fox succeeded to delay The
Hearing for almost 2 years |
| DECISION
ASS JUSTICE HARRISON | |
| 40. SV v University of Newcastle [2005] NSWSC 586.
SUPREME COURT WEBSITE |
| Catchwords: Dismiss statement of claim - duty of care between University and student |
|
Decision: (1) The plaintiff is to file and serve an application for an extension of time together with support
affidavits within 2 months; (2) The matter is stood over to 23 August 2005 at 10.00am before Associate Justice Harrison for
mention; |
|
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs thrown away by the adjournment granted on 8 Feb 05 COSTS were
paid and Justice Harrison knew that |
| and the costs incurred by the amendment to the statement of claim, but otherwise the defendant is to pay the
plaintiff's costs of the notice of motion to date. |
| Judgment Of: Associate Justice Harrison Date: 22 June 2005 |
| Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) - Part 13 r 5, Part 15 r 26 | |
|
DECISION |
New South Wales SUPREME COURT |
| o |
VS v University of Newcastle 20051 NSWSC 586 |
| HEARING DATE(S): |
6 June 2005 JUDGMENT DATE: 22 June 2005 |
| JURISDICTION: |
Common Law Division |
| JUDGMENT OF |
Associate Justice Harrison. |
| Documents on this website Ass Justice Harrison read but refuse to take into consideratation | |
| (1)
The plaintiff is to file and serve an application for an extension of time together with support affidavits within 2 months |
| (2) The matter is stood over to 23 August 2005 at 10. 00am before Associate Justice
Harrison for mention |
|
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs
thrown away by the adjournment granted on 8 February 2005 and the costs incurred by the amendment to the statement of claim,
but otherwise the defendant is to pay the plaintiffs costs of the notice of motion to date. | |
| CATCHWORDS: |
Dismiss statement of claim ‑ duty of care between University and student |
|
LEGISLATION CITED |
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) ‑ Part 13 r 5,Part 15 r 26 | |
|
Air Services Australia v Zarb (NSWCAunreported, 26 August 1998) Dey v Victorian RailwaysCommisioners
(1949) 78 CLR 62 General Steel Industries Inc Commissioner forRailways (1964) 112 CLR 125 New South Wales v Lepore; Samin
v Queensland; Rich v Queensland (2003) 212 CLR 511; (2003) 195 ALR 412; (2003) 77 ALJR 558; (2003)24(3) Leg Rep 2; (2003 Aust
Torts Reports 81‑684;[2003] HCA 4 Webster&Anorv Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598 |
| PARTIES: |
V S (Plaintiff ) |
| : |
University of Newcastle (Defendant) |
| FILE NUMBER(S): |
SC 20372/2004 M |
| COUNSEL: |
Mr Kearney (Plaintiff) |
| COUNSEL |
Mr R Glasson (Defendant) |
| SOLICITOR |
Mr H Martin, Phillips
Fox (Defendant) |
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES |
| COMMON LAW DIVISION ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON |
| WEDNESDAY, 22 JUNE 2005 |
| 20372/2004 ‑ V S
v UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE |
| JUDGMENT (Dismiss statement
of claim ‑ duty of care between University and student) | |
|
HER HONOUR: Originally on 18 October 2004, the plaintiff filed a statement
of claim seeking damages and costs for personal injury, medical negligence and defamation caused by the
defendant. That document was poorly drafted and incomprehensible. On 8 February2005, 1 requested that the plaintiff be given
pro bono assistance for the redrafting of her statement of claim. By notice of motion filed on 3 December2004, the defendant
seeks firstly, to have the proceedings dismissed or stayedpursuant to Part 13 r 5 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) (SCR);
in thealternative, the defendant seeks that the statement of claim be struck outpursuant to Part 15 r 26 of the SCR. |
|
The plaintiff claims that she suffered personal injury caused by the defendant's
actions. She pleads causes of action in tort, contract and defamation.
Part of the statement of claim (between paragraphs [32] to [35]) pleads a claim for defamation. The defamation claim is not the subject of this
strike out application. |
|
-1 |
|
Part 13 r 5 of
the SCR provides that the
Court may dismiss the proceedings in three situations. These include: firstly, where no reasonable
cause of action is disclosed; secondly, where the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious;
and thirdly, where the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court |
|
Part 15 r 26 of the SCR provides that the Court may at any stage of the
proceedings strike out the‑ whole or any part of the pleading in three situations. These include: firstly, where no
reasonable cause of action, defence or case is disclosed; secondly, where the pleadings have a tendency to cause prejudice,
embarrassment or delay in the proceedings;and thirdly, where the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. |
|
In
an application to have the statement of claim dismissed or struck out before trial, the onus on the defendant is high. . As noted by Barwick CJ in General Steel
Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways
1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130: |
|
"Although
I can agree with Latham CJ in the same case when he said that the defendant should be saved from the vexation of the continuance
of useless and futile proceedings [Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91], in my opinion great care
must be exercised to ensure that under the guise of achieving expeditious finality a plaintiff is not improperly deprived
of his opportunity for the trial of his case by the appointed tribunal. On the other hand, I do not think that the exercise
of the jurisdiction should be reserved for those cases where argument is unnecessary to evoke the futility of the plaintiffs
claim. Argument, perhaps even of an extensive kind, may be necessary to demonstrate that the
case of the plaintiff is so clearly untenable that it cannot possibly succeed." |
|
‑2 |
|
"it
is sufficient for me to say that these cases uniformly adhere to the view that
the plaintiff ought not to be denied access to the customary tribunal which deals with actions of the kind he brings, unless
his lack of a cause of action ‑ if that be the ground on which the Court is invited, as in this case, to exercise its powers of summary dismissal ‑ is clearly demonstrated. The test to be applied
has been variously expressed; 'so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed'; 'manifestly groundless'; 'so manifestly
faulty that it does not admit of argument'; 'discloses a case which the Court is satisfied cannot succeed; 'under no possibility
can there be a good cause of action'; 'be manifest that to allow them' (the pleadings) 'to stand would involve useless
expense." |
|
Similar statements have been made
in Air Services Australia v Zarb(NSWCA unreported, 26 August 1998); Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62;
and Webster & Anor v Lampard(1993) 177 CLR 598. |
The amended statement of claim (ASC) is a
marked improvement upon the original statement of claim. The plaintiff was enrolled as a student at the defendant between
1996 and 2000 in the social work faculty. During 1998 the plaintiff undertook a course of study towards the degree known as
a placement under the auspices and direction of the defendant at the Royal Newcastle Hospital (the placement). |
|
In mid August 1998 a meeting between representatives
from the defendant and the plaintiff took place. Subsequently on 26 August 1998, at a meeting Flynn, a lecturer in the Department
of Social Work and Nicole McLauren, a field educator were allegedly critical of the plaintiff. On the same day (26 August
1999) Gaha (Head of Department of Social Work) allegedly wrote and circulated an email critical of the plaintiff |
|
‑3 |
|
In mid 1999, Bryant (Director of the University Counselling office) diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from PTSD
and informed Ramsland and the Dean of Students of that diagnosis. A further meeting between the plaintiff
and the employees of the department was pleaded but it is not necessary to refer to it in details. |
|
At paragraph [31.3‑6] it is pleaded that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to protect her from
conduct of an abusive, defamatory or otherwise harmful nature; to protect her from conduct such as to cause injury to her
in the course of her studies; to provide her with appropriate and proper medical assistance for difficulties being experienced
by her as a consequence of the actions of the employees, servants and agents of the defendant and otherwise; and to provide
her with a procedure and process for the resolution of her complaints that did not expose her to risk of injury |
|
The
breaches of duty of care or the terms of its contract with the plaintiff are specified as being by (a) failing to provide
the plaintiff with a safe place of study; and (b) failing to provide the plaintiff with a course of study permitting her to
complete the requirements necessary for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Social Work. Although the introductory paragraphs
of the ASC refer to the plaintiff as being an employee of the defendant thebalance of the ASC does not plead a case in negligence
as between employee/employer |
|
The defendant submitted that the cause of action was statute barred. As the cause of action arose in about
1998, the causes of action in personal injury appear to be statute barred. This impediment may be overcome by the plaintiff
applying for an extension of the limitation period. I make no comment on the success or otherwise of any potential application.
At this stage, I would not strike out the ASC on this ground alone, but rather, allow 2 months for the plaintiff to file a
notice of motion seeking that the limitation period be extended |
|
_ 4
university specific knowledge |
|
The
defendant submitted that there is no recognised duty of care between a student
and a university unless the university has specific knowledge of a danger to the student. The defendant, by way of example, submitted that the
University would owe a duty of care to a student if it was aware that a darkened staircase caused night students to trip and
hurt themselves but did not take any steps to have the staircase illuminated |
|
However, New South Wales v Lepore; Sarnin v Queensland;
Rich v Queensland (2003)
212 CLR 511; (2003) 195 ALR 412; (2003) 77 ALJR 558; (2003) 24(3) Leg Rep 2;, (2003) Aust Torts Reports 81‑684; [2003]HCA
4 at [100] and [102] Gaudron J stated: |
|
|
'Within the law of ‑negligence,
certain relationships have been identified as giving rise to duties which have been described as "non‑delegable" or
"personal", including master and servant (in relation to the provision of a safe system of work), adjoining owners of land
(in relation to work threatening support or common walls), hospital and patient and, relevantly for these appeals, education
authority and pupil. The relationships which give rise to a non‑delegable or personal duty of care have been described
as involving a person being so placed in relation to another as "to assume a particular responsibility for [that other person's]
safety" because of the latter's "special dependence or vulnerability." |
|
The law of negligence is concerned with a duty to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to another.
As the law of negligence has developed, however, it has become possible, in the case of some relationships, to identify more
precise duties of care. Thus, for example, it is not unusual to speak of an employer's duty to take reasonable care to provide
a safe system of work. And in Introvigne, Murphy J identified the duties of an education authority as duties "[t]o take all
reasonable care to provide suitable and safe premises ... to provide an adequate system to ensure that no child is exposed
to any unnecessary risk of injury;and ...to see that the system is carried out." |
|
-
5 |
|
Thus
there are recognised categories of duties of care such as doctor/patient, employer/employee, education authority and pupil.
But the categories of duty of care relationship are not closed. Hence, it is arguable that there is a duty of care between
the defendant and their students to provide a suitable safe place of study |
|
Even
if I am wrong, the* knowledge element as contended by the defendant is present in this pleading. By mid September 1999, the
defendant had knowledge that the plaintiff was suffering from an injury as a consequence of trauma suffered by her in her
dealings with the University. In paragraph [20] it is pleaded that after the defendant was made aware that the plaintiff was
suffering from PTSD, Gaha and the defendant caused or permitted the contents of the email to be available to a number of other
employees of the defendant, thereby allegedly causing further injury to the plaintiff |
|
It is my view that the
claim as pleaded is not hopeless. It should be permitted to go to trial, provided that the plaintiff is successful in her
application for an extension of time. In this regard, the plaintiff is‑granted leave to file and serve such an application,
together with supporting affidavits within 2 months. If such notice of motion is not filed, the statement of claim should
be dismissed. |
|
Costs are discretionary. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's
costs thrown away by the adjournment granted on 8 February 2005 and the costs incurred by the amendment to the statement of
claim, but otherwisethe defendant is to pay the plaintiffs costs of the notice of motion to date |
|
My Associate has provided
another referral certificate (a copy is attached to the end of this judgment) to the Registrar seeking pro bono legal assistance
in drafting the application to extend the limitation period andaffidavits in support if the plaintiff chooses to proceed with
such an application |
|
The Court
orders:
‑6 |
| (1) The plaintiff is to file and serve an application for an extension of
time together with supporting affidavits within 2 months. |
| (2) The matter is stood over to 23 August 2005 at 10.00am before Associate Justice Harrison for mention. |
|
(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's
costs thrown away by the adjournment granted on 8 Feb 2005 and the costs incurred by the amendment to the statement of claim, but otherwise the defendant
is to pay the plaintiffs costs of the notice of motion to date. |
|
-7 |
|
I
certify that this and the 6 preceding pages are a true copyof the reasons for judgment of Associate Justice Harrison.Dated Wednesday, 22 June 2005 |
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY REGISTRY |
| the |
1, Susan Amundsen, Associate to Associate |
| 2005 |
Justice Harrison certify that on Wednesday,. |
| the |
Dated Wednesday,
22 June 2005 |
|
2005 |
Pursuant to Part 66A subrule 4(4) that it is in the interests of the administration of justice |
| COMMON |
1, Susan Amundsen,, Associate to Associate |
|
LAW DIVISION |
Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor |
| REFERRAL |
for legal assistance under that Part. |
| CERTIFICATE |
Name of litigant referred: | |
|
V S |
1, Susan Amundsen,, Associate to Associate |
| Plaintiff |
Justice Harrison certify that on Wednesday,. |
| (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE |
Dated Wednesday,
22 June 2005 |
| Defendant |
pursuant to Part 66A subrule 4(4) that it is in he interests of the administration of justice |
|
FILE No 2037212004 |
Susan Amundsen |
| Dated: 22 June 206,5 |
Associate to Associate Justice
Harrison |
| |
| ASS
JUSTICE HARRISON IS ACCUSED OF | |
|
* REFUSAL TO ACT LIKE A SUPREME COURT JUDGE
* REFUSAL TO ACCEPT MY DOCUMENTS THE WAY I HAND IN
* ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF DEFENDANT (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE)
* DEFAMATORY STATEMENT LODGED ON MY BEHALF
* AS WELL AS SUBMISSION OF THE HEARING IN HER INTERPRETATION
* SHE TOTALLY DESTROYED REPUTATION OF HONORABLE JUDGE SPIGELMAN AND THE SUPREME
COURT
* JUSTICE HARRISON IS THE REASON WHY SO MANY CITIZENS REFUSE TO GO
TO SUPREME COURT * BEING PART OF NSW JUDICIAL CORRUPTION |
|
SUPREME COURT SYDNEY REGISTRAR MS GREENWOOD | |
|
CRIME IN THE SUPREME COURT REGISTRY
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE FAMILY COURT FILE |
|
On my first inspection of my file I was given incomplete folder of what I have handed in. The attachments enclosed
(doc i/1, doc i/2, doc i/3,) were beginning of my concerns and it did not stop there. I have asked registry staff about the
folder sent from Newcastle family court. I was told “there is no trace of that at the Registry” I asked is it
possible that someone took it or that is placed separately S.C. file in different room” and for not having Court permission
for access I just wished to see it and make sure that is there. Three Registry officers went to search than after 20 minutes
I was told that documents couldn’t be taken without permission, every access is documented without exception. I was
told that I might misunderstand something or my folder simply did not arrive from Newcastle Court yet. I was given opportunity
to talk to the Manager in charge. As it was obvious that I raise an alarm prematurely I’ve had apologies to registry
staff, asked them to spare me further embarrassment and plead to keep this confidential from Ms Greenwood whom I complained
a few times already |
| Response from Newcastle Family Court Back home I went to Newcastle Court and was told that my file was sent to Supreme
Court “long ago” It was sent to SC Registry |
|
Following week, on my second inspection in Sydney Registry, I asked for the Family Court file. This time I requested
that file is brought to the Registrar who would open file and confirmed that is Newcastle Family Court File. After 20 minutes
of search 4 Registry officers came back with the statement: “Newcastle family court folder simply did not arrive from
Newcastle Court yet. No Judicial Officer, Judge, any employee did not taken that folder and any logical place that it might
be is searched. Your folder is not in Supreme Court therefore it is still in Newcastle” |
|
This time I explained what I was told at Newcastle and I asked for the Principal Registrar Greenwood or Manager to
explain me this. They said there is no problem, she is here and she will come. The officer came back after 15 minutes and
told me:” My manager said, yes, the File did arrive but because it arrived from the Newcastle family court it went to
the Sydney family court. I was immediately offered map of Sydney instructed to sit in my car, follow the map carefully as
Family Court is in opposite side of the Sydney, long way from Martin Place |
|
I firmly requested to see the Manager and 2 staff officer went to tell her that. 15 min later
they returned and talked to every single employee who were there, than they made number of phone calls, than they finally
turned to me saying: ”We can not explain this but this women simply vanished. She could not be reached, she did not
left the note, she did not told anybody where she is going and that is very unlike her. Lunch time was not an option as she
just returned from one.” |
|
I
told them that I would wait. After 45 minutes the staff received a phone-call. It was the Principal Registrar Ms Meegan Greenwood who came back and told the staff ”WHEN Ms Simundic return she can have an access
to her file in presence of the duty registrar to make sure it was hers but she can not handle documents herself”. She
also explained that she personally went to see where my file was and it was where it should be at the same place as S.C. file.
All the staff at the Registry simply overlooked that |
|
The staff returned quite upset. None of them looked directly at me but refused to talk about
this further |
|
SC REGISTRAR MS MEEGAN GREENWOOD IS ACCUSED OF | |
|
* REFUSAL TO ACT LIKE A PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR
* REFUSAL TO PROTECT MY DOCUMENTS TO BE AVAILABLE TO JUDGES THE WAY I HAND IN
* ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF DEFENDANT (UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE)
* VERY LIKELY BEING BEHIND DEFAMATORY STATEMENT LODGED TOGETHER WITH J HARRISON
* ACTING AGAINST THE VALUES AND POLICIES SUPREME COURT STANDS FOR
* SHE TOTALLY DESTROYED REPUTATION OF HONORABLE JUDGE SPIGELMAN
* MS MEEGAN IS THE REASON WHY SO MANY CITIZENS REFUSE TO GO TO SUPREME COURT * BEING PART OF NSW JUDICIAL CORRUPTION |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
JUDGMENT 22 June 2006 20372/04 V S v UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE |
|
1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff in these proceedings Mrs Vesna Simundic has made two applications by Notice of Motion,
an application filed on 25 May 2005 that the trial of the proceedings be with a jury (“the jury application”) and an application filed on 21 November 2005 for an order under s 52 of
the Limitation Act (“the Limitation Act application”). Mrs Simundic appeared in person on the hearing of the applications
and has acted for herself during most of the principal proceedings. |
|
2 The principal proceedings were commenced by the filing of a Statement of Claim on 18 October
2004. The original Statement of Claim was defective, as was at least one amended Statement of Claim. On 7 April 2005
a further amended Statement of Claim was filed, which I was informed at the hearing of the applications is the last Statement
of Claim to have been filed. I will refer to this further amended Statement of Claim of 7 April 2005 as “the amended
Statement of Claim”. |
|
3 It is necessary to summarise some of the main allegations made in the amended Statement of Claim. |
|
4 In the amended Statement of Claim it is alleged that the defendant, the University of Newcastle, was the employer
of a number of individuals, including, in particular, Ms Lianne Flynn,
who was a lecturer in the Department of Social Work at the University (her first name is spelt in various ways in the documents which were before me on the hearing of the applications) 23 OCT 06 and Ms Jo Gaha, who was the head of the Department of Social Work in the University. |
|
5 In about 1996 the plaintiff became enrolled as a student in a degree course in the Department of Social Work.
|
|
6 In August 1998, as part of her social work course, the plaintiff undertook a field study placement at the
Royal Newcastle Hospital, her supervisor being Ms Flynn. |
|
7 It is alleged in the statement of claim that on 26 August 1998 Ms Flynn, in the presence of the plaintiff
and the plaintiff’s field study educator, spoke critically about the plaintiff. It is further alleged that subsequently
in late August 1998 the plaintiff had a further meeting with Ms Flynn, in which Ms Flynn was “emotionally and verbally
abusive towards the plaintiff”. 8 The plaintiff was distressed by Ms Flynn’s conduct and made complaints about
it to representatives of the University. In mid 1999 a University counsellor, Ms Bryant, diagnosed the plaintiff as having
a post-traumatic stress disorder. |
|
9 On or about 26 August 1999 Ms Gaha wrote an email, which the plaintiff alleges “contained material critical of, offensive
to and materially false in respect of the plaintiff”. Ms Gaha or the University caused the email to be published to
a number of employees of the University. 10 On or about 1 September 1999, at a meeting attended by the plaintiff, Ms Gaha and other employees of the University, an employee of
the University named Ramsland accused the plaintiff of “behaving in a violent and intimidatory manner” towards
an employee of the University. 11 On 17 August 2000 there was a further meeting, at which the plaintiff, Ms Gaha and other students of the University were
present, during which Ms Gaha was “abusive and accusing” of the plaintiff. |
|
12 The plaintiff ceased to be a student of the University in the year 2000, without having obtained a degree in Social Work.
|
|
13 The plaintiff alleges in the amended Statement of Claim that she suffered various kinds of psychological
injury including post-traumatic stress disorder, “as a consequence of trauma suffered by the plaintiff in her dealings
with the University, Flynn, Gaha and Ramsland”. |
|
14 In the amended Statement of Claim the plaintiff claims that the conduct
in which she alleges the University and its employees engaged gave rise to three causes of action, namely:- |
|
(i) A cause of action in negligence arising from breaches by the University of a duty
to provide the plaintiff with a safe place of study and to provide the plaintiff with a course of study permitting the plaintiff
to complete the requirements necessary for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Social Work. 11 JAN 2000 |
|
(ii) A cause of action in contract arising from breaches by the University of a contract
between the plaintiff and the University, under which the University was bound to provide the plaintiff with a safe place
of study and to provide the plaintiff with a course of study permitting the plaintiff to complete the requirements necessary
for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Social Work |
| (iii) A cause of action in defamation based on the publication of the email written by Gaha on or about 26 August
1999. |
|
15 The University has not yet pleaded to the amended Statement of Claim.
|
|
16 After the University was served with the amended Statement of Claim, an application was made by the University
for an order that the plaintiff’s proceedings be summarily dismissed or, alternatively, for an order that the amended
Statement of Claim be struck out. The University’s application came before Harrison AsJ. In a judgment delivered on
22 June 2005 Harrison AsJ declined to make either of the orders sought by the University. However, on the basis that by the
time the original Statement of Claim was filed on 18 October 2004, the causes of action in negligence and breach of contract
for damages for personal injury would have become statute-barred, unless on some ground the running of the limitation periods
fixed by the Limitation Act 1969 had been suspended, Harrison AsJ directed that the plaintiff file and serve any application
for an “extension of time” under the Limitation Act. An application for an order under s 52 of the Limitation
Act was filed by the plaintiff on 21 November 2005 and this is the Limitation Act application to be determined by me |
|
17 It is convenient at this stage to refer to certain provisions of the Limitation Act which are applicable
to the causes of action pleaded by the plaintiff in the amended Statement of Claim. |
|
18 Under s 18A of the Limitation Act a cause of action founded on breach of duty for damages for personal injury
is not maintainable, if brought after the expiration of a limitation period of 3 years running from the date on which the
cause of action first accrued to the plaintiff. BOB CARR |
|
19 It may be that the causes of action in negligence and for breach of contract first accrued to the plaintiff
on 26 August 1998. On any view, the causes of action had accrued by the time the plaintiff ceased to be a student at the University
in the year 2000. Accordingly, it is clear that the causes of action in negligence and for breach of contract, having been
first brought by the filing of the original Statement of Claim on 18 October 2004, well after the expiration of the limitation
period of 3 years running from the date on which the causes of action first accrued to the plaintiff, would be statute-barred,
unless on some ground the running of the limitation periods was postponed. 2001 CONTACT WITH SC |
|
20 It was accepted by counsel for the University that the plaintiff’s cause of action in defamation, to
which a 6 year limitation period applies, is not statute-barred. |
21 In the Limitation Act application Mrs. Simundic relied on
s 52 of the Limitation Act, which, so far as is relevant, provides:- “(1) ……… where:
(a) a person has a cause of action,
(b) the limitation period fixed by this Act for the cause of action has
commenced to run, and
(c) the person is under a disability |
In that case:
(d) the running of the limitation period is suspended for the duration of the
disability …… ….” |
| 22 In s 11(3) of the Act it is provided that::- “for the
purposes of this Act a person is under a disability:………………………………………………………………… |
|
(b) while the person is, for a continuous period of 28 days or upwards,
incapable of, or substantially impeded in, the management of his or her affairs in relation to the cause of action in respect
of the limitation period for which the question arises, by reason of: |
|
(i) any disease or any impairment of his or her …mental condition.” |
|
23 The plaintiff’s case on the Limitation Act application is that for much, if not all, of the period
between 26 August 1998 and 18 October 2004 she was substantially impeded in the management of her affairs in relation to the
causes of action in negligence and breach of contract by reason of an impairment of her mental condition. |
|
24 The evidence on the Limitation Act application was voluminous, much of it of only marginal, or no, relevance
to the application. |
|
25 The application was supported by a lengthy affidavit by the plaintiff and the plaintiff was cross-examined
by counsel for the University. Many documents were tendered by both parties. Most of the documents tendered by the defendant
were contained in a volume described as the defendant’s tender bundle. |
|
26 I do not propose to attempt in this judgment to summarise all of the evidence admitted on the hearing of
the applications. It is, however, useful to set out some of the facts which are clearly established by the documentary evidence
and some of the allegations made by the plaintiff, including when the allegations were made. |
|
27 On 26 August 1998 and again on 28 August 1998 Ms Flynn allegedly spoke critically and abusively about the
plaintiff in the presence of the plaintiff and others. |
|
28 On 30 October 1998 the plaintiff sent an email to Ms Gaha, which contained a detailed description of what
the plaintiff alleged Ms Flynn had done and said on 26 August and 28 August. The plaintiff requested that her “placement
liaison person” (Ms Flynn) be changed. |
|
29 In paragraph 2 of section 1 of her affidavit of 21 November 2005 the plaintiff said that:- “half year
later on my second placement (that is, half a year after late 1998) the full impact of what Ms Flynn did to me emerged and
my placement at Centre Link was terminated. Dep. of (Social Work) realised that the interaction with Ms Flynn had serious
impact on me.” |
|
30 On 4 August 1999 the plaintiff had a meeting with Professor English, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University.
The plaintiff told Professor English that the abuses she had experienced from Ms Flynn had had a great impact on the plaintiff’s
health. Professor English suggested that the plaintiff undergo counselling and referred the plaintiff to Ms Bryant, the Director
of the University’s Counselling Services. The plaintiff was interviewed by Ms Bryant and Ms Bryant diagnosed the plaintiff
as having post traumatic stress disorder. |
|
31 In a letter dated 8 September 1999 the plaintiff requested Ms Bryant to provide “regular and on-going
weekly counselling to overcome the verbal and emotional abuse I experienced with Ms Lianne Flynn last year”. |
|
32 On 13 September 1999 the plaintiff wrote a letter to the University Grievance Officer of the University of
Newcastle, lodging two formal grievances against the Head of the Department of Social Work, complaining that she had been
failed in her field work course without receiving procedural fairness and that her failure in the subject was itself unreasonable.
In her letter the plaintiff supplied detailed reasons for her complaints. |
|
33 In November 1999 the plaintiff sent an email to the Dean of Students at
the University of Newcastle saying:- “I want to report emotional and verbal abuse I went (through) in social work department
which resulted in TRAUMA and affected my performance on placement to SOMEONE in this University who will give me LEGAL advice. |
|
Is there any LEGAL OFFICER for students – someone who can give legal advice and
support student in the court. I’ve decided to take social work department to the court.” |
|
34 On 11 January 2000 the plaintiff wrote a letter to Ms Gaha, enclosing documents. In her letter the plaintiff
said that “the documents which I have enclosed show clearly that I experienced trauma as a result of the interaction
with Ms Flynn in September 1998”. |
|
35 On 16 January 2000 the University’s Grievance Committee delivered a report of its investigation of the plaintiff’s grievances against the Department of
Social Work, dismissing the first complaint but upholding the second complaint. |
|
|
36 On 16 May 2000 the plaintiff
wrote a letter to the Dean of Students. In her letter the plaintiff said:-
“I’m
concerned if I turn up (to class) that Jo Gaha will humiliate me in front of everyone and I will again go through trauma.
Last year she verbally abused the student ‘till the point of trauma in front of all third year. I am really concerned
for myself.” |
|
It would seem that “the student” referred to is the plaintiff herself |
|
37 On 19 July 2000 the plaintiff wrote again to the University’s Grievance Committee, complaining
against the decision to fail the plaintiff on a field study placement at Gosford and giving reasons for her complaint. |
|
38 On 6 August 2000 the plaintiff wrote a letter “to whom it may concern”, complaining about the
University of Newcastle and the Social Work Department. In her letter she said:- “From 1998 until now, I
was subject of emotional, verbal and educational abuse. The individuals who are responsible for these are my lecturers/tutors
from Social Work Department. I was emotionally and verbally abused until point of trauma in the office of Ms Flynn in ’98
……….. .” |
|
39 On 18 August 2000 the plaintiff wrote a letter to the University Secretary and Registrar, setting out her
complaints. |
|
40 On 7 November 2000 the Anti-Discrimination Board received
a formal complaint from the plaintiff, which was dated 13 September 2000. |
|
41 In this complaint the plaintiff said that discrimination against her had occurred on 26 August 1998 and a
few days afterwards, when she had been abused in the office of Lianne Flynn. The plaintiff complained that Ms Flynn had abused
her “till the point of trauma”. The plaintiff also complained that Ms Gaha had made defamatory statements about
the plaintiff “to everyone”. |
|
42 In answer to a question on the printed complaint form asking “did these things
happen more than 6 months ago?” the plaintiff wrote
“1. FIRST ABUSE - 1998. - Did not complain – except
to social work dep. and DVC (Deputy Vice-Chancellor) Prof. English. My priority was to finish degree – not to go to
court.
2. EFFECT OF ABUSE – The trauma affected my life & study. I expected Social Work to
take responsibility – in return they abused me further. I complain to grievance.
3. After disclosing that I went
through trauma to SWRK (Social Work) Dep. I expected their help. The abuse I went through in Gosford made me realise that
I deal with criminals. I took Legal Aid.” |
|
43 In answer to a question on the printed complaint form “have you done anything else to try to sort out this
complaint?” the plaintiff wrote:
“I contacted solicitor Ms Kim McFayden – she works for McDonald Johnson
– Newcastle. She was the only one who did not want to charge me. I do not have money!! Kim told me that is unacceptable
what is happened to me and that I need $15,000 for Legal Expenses. She think that I should take them to court. I DO NOT HAVE MONEY!” |
|
44 It is apparent from documents in evidence on the hearing of the applications that in the year 2001 the plaintiff
made inquiries of a large number of persons or bodies, seeking assistance in pursuing her claims and grievances against the
University, including the New South Wales Ombudsman, the New South Wales District Court, the Legal Services Commissioner,
the Chairman of the Inquiry into Public Education in New South Wales, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Commonwealth
Ombudsman, the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
Most of these persons and bodies replied to the plaintiff that her claims did not fall within their jurisdiction. |
|
45 On 23 October 2001 the Community Assistance Solicitor for the Law Society of New South Wales wrote to the
plaintiff saying that the plaintiff might consider instructing one of three solicitors firms which had been randomly selected
from the Law Society’s data base. In the letter it was noted that “you have addressed your concerns with a number
of Newcastle University departments including the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the former head of the Social Work Department,
the National Union of Students Association, the Anti-Discrimination Board, the Belmont Police Station and a number of legal
firms”. |
|
46 On 8 November 2001 the Policy and Research Officer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales sent an email
to the plaintiff, which included the following paragraphs:-
“I refer to your email to Mrs Nerida Johnston requesting
advice in relation to difficulties you are experiencing in the course of your social work studies at Newcastle University.
Mrs. Johnston has asked me to reply to you. I regret that neither Mrs Johnston nor other officers of the Registry can provide
you with legal advice. I note that you have sought advice from a solicitor already. If, however, you wish to seek further
legal advice or information from other sources you might wish to consider the following options ………….
.”The email then set out various options, including another private legal practitioner, a Local Court Chamber Magistrate,
the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, the New South Wales Law Society, the New South Wales Bar Association, a Community
Legal Aid Centre, a Legal Information Access Centre and a Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court. |
|
47
I have already noted that the plaintiff’s complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board included allegations about matters
occurring more than six months before the date on which the complaint was lodged and the plaintiff was asked to provide a
further explanation of why she had not lodged her complaint within time. In a document dated 24 September 2002 the plaintiff
supplied a detailed explanation, including the following:-
“I was abused by Miss Flynn 1998 ‘till point of
TRAUMA. I’ve sent you documents of what the trauma is, how it affects victims and what the consequences are. If not
treated immediately, professionally it leads to mental illness. It took me whole year until DVC English decided to investigate
my behaviour and I was told “you are trauma victim”. It took me another year to accept that the social workers
denied abuse and instead of helping me I was abused further in an effort to make me leave. Finally – accepted the truth
that there is no help whatsoever I took the matter to ADB ………… .” |
| 48 In about March or April 2003 a legal practitioner, Mr Keeley, commenced acting for the plaintiff on her complaint
to the Anti- Discrimination Board. |
|
49 In about August 2003 the plaintiff’s complaint
was referred from the Anti-Discrimination Board to the Admin Decisions
Tribunal. On 29 August 2003 the plaintiff swore a long affidavit with many annexures, which was filed in the Admin
Decisions Tribunal The affidavit was witnessed by Mr. Keeley and was obviously prepared with legal assistance. [ITS OTHER WAY AROUND] |
|
50 In February 2004 a two day hearing of
the plaintiff’s case took place in the Admin Decisions Tribunal. For at least part of the hearing the plaintiff was
represented by Mr. Keeley. [MS SUE BEACH HUSH-HUSH MEETENG WITH MY SOLICITOR] |
|
51 On 21 September 2004, after reserving its decision for 7 months, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal handed down a decision, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaints that she had been discriminated against
by the University of Newcastle |
|
| DECISION HANDED DOWN AFTER COMPLAIN] |
|
52 In the year 2002 the plaintiff’s husband instituted divorce proceedings under the Family Law Act. In
the proceedings the plaintiff’s husband sought custody of the couple’s younger daughter. |
|
53 The plaintiff was legally represented in the Family Court proceedings by Mr. John McFadden. On 17 February
2003 the plaintiff made a long affidavit of 170 paragraphs in the Family Court proceedings. |
|
54 On 11 March 2003 the plaintiff’s general medical practitioner, Dr. Ferguson, made an affidavit in the
Family Court proceedings. In his affidavit Dr. Ferguson said that he had treated the plaintiff from time to time since 1989.
In paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of his affidavit Dr. Ferguson said:- |
|
6. In my opinion,
the respondent wife does not suffer from any mental illness or personality disorder. She has never described any psychotic
episode to me and there.................has been no evidence exhibited to me that she suffers or has suffered any psychosis. |
|
7. The respondent
wife has suffered from a post traumatic stress disorder arising from an episode in her life when as a child she was sexually
abused. She reported to me.................that when she told her father who the perpetrator was and the circumstances of
the abuse, he did nothing about the allegations. She had described to me at various.................times
how she has been depressed. |
|
8. Her depression is consistent with
the history she gave me. It is reasonable that she should suffer recurring symptoms from time to time but these symptoms are
not.................such as would interfere with her ability to care for her children.” |
|
55 The only reference in Dr. Ferguson’s affidavit to the plaintiff’s dispute with the University
of Newcastle is in paragraph 16 which stated:-
“16. I became aware in the course of treating the respondent wife
that she was experiencing difficulties with Newcastle University staff and she reported to me that she was not receiving any
emotional support from the applicant husband who was an employee of the University.” |
|
56 On 21 March 2003 Dr. Ferguson referred the plaintiff to a psychiatrist Dr. Bruce Chenoweth. Dr. Chenoweth
saw the plaintiff on 24 March and 28 March and furnished a report to Mr McFadden dated 31 March 2003, in which he said:-
“I
confirm that within the time that I saw Mrs. Simundic that she did not suffer from a mental illness nor a disorder, had not
suffered from any form of “nervous breakdown”, was not violent nor abusive in my knowing of her nor in the history
that she relayed concerning her relationship with her husband and was not clinically disturbed in any meaningful way. She
was not diagnosable in psychiatric terms but wanted psychotherapy to assist her understanding of events and to continue a
healing process, which she perceived began with her migration to Australia …………. .” |
| 57 In a report of 20 August 2003 Dr. Chenoweth expressed the opinion that the plaintiff had suffered a post-traumatic
stress disorder as a result of being “abused verbally and pressured …………
by her supervisor who controlled whether she passed or failed”. Dr. Chenoweth considered that the plaintiff displayed
a number of symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, including being agitated and emotionally labile when she described
the events giving rise to the disorder. |
|
| 57 In a report of 20 August 2003 Dr. Chenoweth expressed the opinion that the plaintiff had suffered a post-traumatic
stress disorder as a result of being “abused verbally and pressured ………… by her supervisor who controlled whether she passed or failed”. |
 |
 | |
|
58 The issue I have to determine is whether the plaintiff was, for some period at least between 26 August 1998 and 18 October
1994, substantially impeded in the management of her affairs in relation to the causes of action in negligence and breach
of contract pleaded in the amended Statement of Claim, by reason of an impairment of her mental condition. It could not be
suggested that during any part of that period the plaintiff was actually incapable of the management of her affairs in relation
to those causes of action. |
|
59 The plaintiff submitted that between 26 August 1998 and 18 October 2004 she suffered from a post-traumatic
stress disorder, from which she continues to suffer, and by reason of her post-traumatic stress disorder she was substantially
impeded in the management of her affairs in relation to the causes of action. In a document headed “Application for
an Extension of Time”, an annexure to her affidavit of 21 November 2005, the plaintiff asserted that because of her
post-traumatic stress disorder she became unable to manage simple tasks and was in such a psychological state that she could
not think clearly or take any effective action. |
|
60 For the purposes of this application I am prepared to accept, on the basis of certain evidence of the plaintiff,
Dr. Ferguson and Dr. Chenoweth, that the plaintiff may have suffered a post-traumatic stress disorder, caused, at least partly,
by the conduct of members of the staff of the Department of Social Work at the University of Newcastle and that the symptoms
of that disorder included symptoms described by Dr. Chenoweth in his report of 20 August 2003, including agitation, emotional
lability, sleep disturbance, flash-backs and intrusive memories. |
|
61 However, I am not persuaded that the plaintiff was for any part of the period between 26 August 1998 and
18 October 2004 substantially impeded in the relevant sense by reason of the post-traumatic stress disorder or any other mental
condition to which she was subject or, alternatively, I consider that the plaintiff ceased to be so substantially impeded
no later than some time in the year 2000. |
|
62 In his affidavit of 11 March 2003 sworn in the Family Court proceedings Dr. Ferguson stated that, in his
opinion, the plaintiff did not then suffer from any mental illness or personality disorder, that the plaintiff had not described
any psychotic episode to Dr. Ferguson and that the plaintiff had not exhibited any evidence of psychosis. |
|
63 In his report of 31 March 2003 to the plaintiff’s solicitor in the Family Court proceedings Dr Chenoweth
confirmed that the plaintiff did not suffer from any mental illness or disorder, had not suffered any form of nervous breakdown
and was not clinically disturbed in any meaningful way. |
|
64 It is apparent from a number of documents of which the plaintiff was the author that she had, from a quite
early stage or at least from some time in the year 2000, a clear appreciation of what she asserts was the wrongful conduct
towards her of members of the University staff and of what she asserts was the impact of that wrongful conduct on her. For
example, she described in detail what she alleges had been Ms Flynn’s conduct towards her in her email of 30 October
1998 to Ms Gaha. |
|
65 By August 1999 the plaintiff knew that she had been diagnosed by the counsellor Ms Bryant as having a post-traumatic
stress disorder and by that time, according to paragraph 2 of section 1 of her affidavit of 21 November 2005 she appreciated
“the full impact of what Ms Flynn did to me”. |
|
66 In the year 2001 the plaintiff contacted many individuals or bodies, seeking assistance in pursuing or vindicating
her claims against the University. These persons or bodies included the New South Wales Ombudsman, the Commonwealth Ombudsman,
the New South Wales District Court, the Legal Services Commissioner, the Chairman of the Inquiry into Public Education in
New South Wales, the New South Wales Law Society, the New South Wales Supreme Court and the Commonwealth Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs. The plaintiff’s conduct in contacting these individuals or bodies demonstrates that she
then had a capacity to manage her affairs in relation to her claims against the University. Capacity to manage her affairs |
|
67 In particular, the plaintiff made the complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board, dated 13 September 2000
and received by the Board on 7 November 2000. In her complaint she alleged that she had been discriminated against and abused
by, among others, Ms Flynn and Ms Gaha, causing her trauma. |
|
68 In the document dated 24 September 2002 the plaintiff offered an explanation of why she had not lodged her
complaint within 6 months of the matters complained of occurring. The plaintiff asserted that a year had elapsed before the
Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University had acted and because of the trauma she had suffered it had taken the plaintiff another
year to accept that the Department of Social Work staff denied having abused her and were abusing her further. The implication
of what the plaintiff said in the document of 24 September 2002 is that, by the time the plaintiff lodged her complaint dated
13 September 2000, if not earlier, the plaintiff was cognisant of what she alleged had been misconduct by the University staff
and of the effect of that misconduct on her and she was prepared and able to take steps to vindicate
herself against the University and its staff. |
|
69 The plaintiff instructed a lawyer to act for her in connection with her complaint
of discrimination, she made an affidavit in the proceedings in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and she attended at the
hearing in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. |
|
70 In 2002 and 2003 the plaintiff contested the divorce proceedings brought against her by her
husband, she instructed a legal practitioner to act for her in those proceedings and she made a
long affidavit. |
|
71 The plaintiff asserted at the hearing that she had deferred commencing proceedings in the Supreme Court,
because she had been told (semble by a Court officer) that she should be patient and wait until her case in the Anti-Discrimination
Board had finished, before she commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court. There is no documentary evidence
to support this assertion. I have already referred to the email from the Policy and Research Officer of the Court of
8 November 2001, which merely informed the plaintiff that Court officers could not provide the plaintiff with legal advice
and notified the plaintiff of possible sources of legal advice. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to accept that any
such advice as is alleged, was given by any officer of the Court. In any event, even if such advice was given, it would not
be relevant to the issue I have to decide, of whether the plaintiff was substantially impeded by reason of an impairment of
her mental condition. That the plaintiff may have been deterred from commencing legal proceedings by a lack of money with
which to pay lawyers, while regrettable, is also not relevant to the issue I have to decide. 16 OCT
2001 documentary evidence |
|
72 I dismiss the plaintiff’s Limitation
Act application. |
|
73 The plaintiff’s jury application can be readily determined. I have dismissed the
plaintiff’s Limitation Act application, with the consequence that, at least as matters stand, the plaintiff’s
causes of action in negligence and breach of contract are statute-barred.
|
|
74 The plaintiff’s cause of action in defamation is not statute-barred but, as the publication of the allegedly defamatory matter took place before the
commencement of the Defamation Act 2005, the law of defamation to be applied is that contained in the Defamation Act 1974
(see Defamation Act 2005, Sch 4). Section 7A of the Defamation Act 1974 prescribes what functions are
to be performed by the judge and what functions are to be performed by a jury in proceedings
for defamation to which the 1974 Act applies and leaves no scope for an application of the kind brought by the plaintiff.
I dismiss the plaintiff’s application for a jury. |
|
75
I dismiss both of the plaintiff’s applications and make an order that the plaintiff pay the
defendant’s costs of both applications. |
|
Amendments
23/06/2006 - Date of judgment omitted - Paragraph(s) Not applicable SUPREME COURT Honorable Justices JAMES |
|
|
| WHISPERING JUDGE BRUCE MEREDITH JAMES - by whispering Joanne McCarthy |
|
|
JUSTICE EINFELD "I lied,
but I'm basically honest" |
|
PSYCHIATRIST Jail
would worsen Einfeld's depression, says psychiatrist |
|
QC Einfeld punishment could outweigh crime |
|
ACCOMMODATION Einfeld’s request; Cell door open at night, as it was "a bit hot in here". |
|
THE LAW. |
|
MEDIA Perjury carries a maximum penalty
of 14 years' imprisonment Making a false statement carries a maximum of 10 years. |
|
WHISPERING JUDGE MARCUS EINFELD, diagnosed with prostate cancer and suffering depression, wept in the witness
box yesterday during a dramatic day in which Justice Bruce James of the Supreme Court heard evidence and submissions on the
sentence he should give him |
|
"Any judge (except me and my gang from SC), who commits such an offence is to be sentenced
on the basis that he would have been fully aware of the gravity of his conduct, About 10MIL legal fees? There is no order
about 10 MIL outstanding legal fees'' BRUCE MEREDITH JAMES |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
