IN THE SUPREME COURT IN SYDNEY
DAVID GREGORY MURPHY V COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF STRATHFIELD AND ANORS
2011/327194, 1443/64
25th December 2012
To:
Dennis Vuaran,
DIBBS BARKER
Level 8 Angel Place
123 Pitt St
Sydney 2000
By email only:
Email response to email and letter of second defendant of 11st December and
Further specific Requests to Admit Facts per part 17.3 of second defendant, Akzo Nobel Pty Ltd, as owner to some extent of ICI, Imperial Chemicals Industries.
1. In relation to 1 I say a further amended Statement of Liquidated Claim will soon be filed and served. I shall forward that to you when it is filed and sealed. I shall do service by email as it it much easier as everyone has printers and forwarding on and duplication is free of costs. Service of a Supreme Court Statement of Claim by email at 5 pm on 16th March was considered effective enough to put into an action an attempt to undermine credibility, the defendant or its associates having no defence so email service has hence in this matter been admitted effective.
2. The Notices in question were forwarded by email to a number of Akzo Nobel email addresses:
, , ,Subject: / Notice to Admit Facts and Notice to Properly Settle
Date: / 23.05.2012 17:01
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <> To: Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 23.05.2012 17:01
The original message was received at Wed, 23 May 2012 17:00:57 +1000
from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail13.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
allen.brookes@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@akzonobel.com>)
brookes.allen@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@akzonobel.com>)
From: Andrews, Blake <> To: <> Subject: Not read: Notice to Admit Facts and Notice to Properly Settle Date: 08.06.2012 07:12
To: , , , Subject: Notice to Admit Facts and Notice to Properly Settle - this second time with all Notice to Admit annexures. Date: 20.06.2012 23:52
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <> To: Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 20.06.2012 23:54
The original message was received at Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:50:35 +1000
from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail12.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
allen.brookes@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@akzonobel.com>)
brookes.allen@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@akzonobel.com>)
From: Andrews, Blake <> To: David <> Subject: Not read: Electronic email service of Notice of Motion, Affidavit and Annexure of David Gregory Murphy of 21.8.2012 in 2011/327194 Date: 30.08.2012 09:09
To: , , , , Subject: Electronic filing and simultaneous filing of Amended Statement of Liquidated Claim and Affidavit in Support and other bringing up to speed documents Date: 04.07.2012 23:56
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <> To: Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 05.07.2012 00:01
The original message was received at Wed, 4 Jul 2012 23:55:03 +1000
from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail9.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
allen.brookes@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@akzonobel.com>)
brookes.allen@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@akzonobel.com>)
To: , , , , Subject: Complementary electronic service of sealed copies of both Amended Statement of Liquidated Claim and Affidavit Verifying with provision to cover your print off costs thereof Date: 18.07.2012 23:00
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <> To: Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 18.07.2012 23:03
The original message was received at Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:00:08 +1000
from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail12.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
allen.brookes@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@akzonobel.com>)
brookes.allen@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@akzonobel.com>)
To: , , , , Subject: Electronic email service of Notice of Motion, Affidavit and Annexure of David Gregory Murphy of 21.8.2012 in 2011/327194 Date: 21.08.2012 18:01
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <> To: Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: 21.08.2012 18:08
The original message was received at Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:00:03 +1000
from 110-174-27-238.static.tpgi.com.au [110.174.27.238]
This message was generated by mail13.tpgi.com.au
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
allen.brookes@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <allen.brookes@akzonobel.com>)
brookes.allen@akzonobel.com
(reason: 550-Invalid recipient <brookes.allen@akzonobel.com>)
From: Info AkzoNobel <> To: <> Subject: Not read: Electronic email service of Notice of Motion, Affidavit and Annexure of David Gregory Murphy of 21.8.2012 in 2011/327194 Date: 21.09.2012 15:18
From: David Gregory Murphy <> To: , , , , , , Subject: Notice to Admit Facts and Admit Authenticity of Documents per part 17 UCPR (NSW) 2005 and Notice to Properly Settle Under Guarantee - third pass - by email service only Date: 16.11.2012 17:05
To Akzo Nobel Pty Limited
Dear Madam/Sir
Please forward requesting party's attached Notice to Admit Facts and Admit Authenticity of Documents and Notice to Properly Settle Under Guarantee to appropriate department.
You have 14 days until 30th November 2012 to respond per section 17.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW, in the same fashion as you are served, by return email, otherwise all facts are admitted per part 17.3 of the UCPR.
Note addition of part 5 added since last service on 20.6.12 and subsequent part 17.3 admissions by parties on 4.7.12.
Documents and exhibits attached.
David Gregory Murphy
Plaintiff
Case no 2011/327194, formerly 1443/64
SUPREME COURT IN SYDNEY
From: David Gregory Murphy <> To: , , , , , Subject: In matter 2011/327194: Further Requests to Admit Facts of seventh defendant and request for identity of possible twelfth, and maybe thirteenth and even a fourteenth, defendant. Date: 09.12.2012 23:00
From: Andrews, Blake <> To: David Gregory Murphy <> Subject: Out of Office: In matter 2011/327194: Further Requests to Admit Facts of seventh defendant and request for identity of possible twelfth, and maybe thirteenth and even a fourteenth, defendant. Date: 09.12.2012 23:00
Thank you for your email.
I am currently off site with limited email/phone access.
For matters that need to be dealt with promptly, please contact;
(08) 8359 4333 - and/or
For inquiries of a technical/sales nature, can be contacted on 0407 638 044.
Speak to you soon - Blake
3. The Amended Statement of Claim was also forwarded by registered mail to Akzo Nobel offices at 8 Kell.away Place, Wether.ill Park on 23rd July 2012. No response was received but Akzo Nobel suffered no detriment by not responding. On September 3rd Justice Hidden in the Supreme Court refused leave to file the visibly defective Amended Statement of Claim thus performing me a service in not proceeding to point six of the motion – hence the recent fifth and sixth sets of now admitted requests to admit and consequent upon your appearance seventh set of ten requests to admit facts specifically to you below.
4. In relation to 2 your client admitted on 30th November all that was put to it per part 17.3 of the UCPR. Your out of time notice of non admission was not a notice of dispute so all is admitted.
5. In relation to 3 I say the Notice of 16th November actually contains a number of Notices to Admit Facts, each quite valid in themselves, all but the fifth having been served upon you before and the fifth being served upon you for the first time on 16th November by email to email addresses that had been previously been advised for service of court pleadings.
The notice is a valid notice to admit as it is a notice, albeit containing in itself a number again of past notices to admit. It contains detailed, disclosive and definitive self executing requests and asks you to admit, or agree if you prefer, or deny and in the event of a deny to elucidate, should there be any reason, and say why. The service of the 16th November was like a fresh opportunity to provide a timely notice of dispute, the previous two services of May and June having been admitted to by all.
6. Perhaps by saying the notice is not a valid Notice to Admit Facts, apart from the fact that it contains a number of past actual Notices to Admit Facts it still contains facts plural. Part 17 does not call the instrument a Notice to Admit Alleged Facts or Notice to admit Purported Facts or a Notice to Admit a Fact at a Time and in the interests of Aon v Anu I have, of course, as a qualified ex teacher of english and law therapist connected various sets of facts collectively into one sentence scenarios and subcases to expedite matters and make it easier for everyone to understand the entire case including, of course, the Court. In the interests of Aon v Anu the various connected facts put together in various questions over either one notice or now over many months five notices, it matters not which, serve to expedite the proceedings and conclude the issue of liabilities such that justice is quick, cheap and of course exceedingly just. The requests are such that they could not be put in the witness box and by putting them as written requests plenty of opportunity is given you to give studied reflective detailed written answers to the questions at your and your client’s leisure.
7. What precedent or regulation do you cite to say it is not valid? It has been properly served in that you effectively got it in its entirety and email now is an excellent way to serve, well used by I should imagine all legal personnel, and I note the Courts, for all manner of communications and servings. The format of electronic filing and simultaneous service of a Statement of Liquidated Claim satisfying the rules has been thoroughly tested and accepted by Burwood Local Court and it has worked will and that matter of mine is now somewhat down the track. Your client did attempt to respond to it by issuing an out of time notice to not admit which is not a notice of dispute as called for in the circumstances by the rules. Presumably a Notice of Dispute answers each of the whys and is not as lazy and lacking as a stopgap Notice of non admission. I have thus far received only one of these although the respondent did not call her email missive an actual Notice of Dispute however in tackling all the whys in detail it served as such – and I expect she got paid well for it as being an undercover agent there was more unexpected good money in it for her and it was probably testing new ground and set me off in a new direction against her mentors who trace back to another of the defendants who have no defence – who have just now on the 23rd in turn admitted all put to them.
8. Which Supreme Court rule/s are you citing?
9. I don’t care if your client chooses not to respond. It’s a self executing notice to admit facts and on 30th November with no Notice of Dispute, not that I could get my teeth into, it executed in that all was admitted and you had had two opportunities and many lots of 14 days to compose detailed and well considered answers to it, much more than 14 days and much better that shooting off answers of the top of your head in a witness box. Email allows this more and it serves Aon v Anu well and allows more time.
10. If someone is saying that in this day and age after all this time that email is not now a perfectly valid and effective way to serve and prove service of pleadings (too well perhaps, see above) well they have to bow to the inevitable that before long it is going to change and this case should certainly help that change to take place. Email has been found to be a valid manner of service in the Court of Admiralty in the United Kingdom and it is time it was the case here too. In fact in a case like this it is the only sensible and practical option and opens up many new possibilities. As said by way of precedent someone somewhere thought my email service of the initiating Statement of Claim (Liquidated) on the first defendant only at 5 p.m. on 16th March 2012 to be very effective calling for a stiff form response and that matter is currently proceeding in another jurisdiction and heading for precedent as to service. It is not my function to waste time and money and escalate costs in the highly complex, non productive and befuddling task of itself of supplying printed pleadings to solicitors who have lost their practicing certificates and now run process service operations to give them some avoidable work.
11. To 4 I say your notice to not admit is not provided for under the rules, unlike a notice of dispute is deficient, unenlightening and is out of time. Not only was it not within the 14 days but my electronic service records show that service of the requests to admit was served upon your client on two previous occasions 23rd May and 20th June. You state your client does not now admit but you did not say that it did not admit during the fourteen day period so on 30th November all was admitted by your client, all that your client could be expected to know. Furthermore I do not need to tell you that in the ensuing fourteen day period you had a grace opportunity to sneak in a a doubly impressive (having taken for yourselves twice as much time) set of answers to the requests to admit facts with grounds as to delay but by 14th December you had not done this and such did not attend your missive of 11th December. Same goes probably for the 28th December – move quick. Furthermore the requests to admit also request that in the event that your client does not admit then it is called upon to say why and this has not been done so any not admits are not only doubly, triply even, out of time but don’t hold water, don’t perform, don’t go anywhere, are lacking in force unconvincing stopgap anti Aon v Anu delay measures and are deficient as the whys have been avoided. “He stood there and asked me why, all I could do was cry” - Shangri Las.