Unrepresented Appellant Succeeds in Having Biased NCAT Decision Overturned,
Despite being told by Prominent Sydney Barrister There’s Little-to-No Chance of Success, 27.07.2020
It was 11th March 2020 when Francis Marks Principal Member of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) and ex-Judge of the Industrial Relations Commission (puisne judge, so not really a proper judge) handed down his biased decision just (11) eleven business days after hearing the Application for Restraint Orders under Section 110 of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA).
NCAT is on the record taking as long as (2) two years; was Marks some kind of super judicial officer?
Marks had (3) three joined matters to determine over (1) one day, but he tells it as (2) two days.
The Respondent in the proceedings was Telina Webb, unrepresented against a fleet of solicitors including Carlo Zoppo and Matthew Harker of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers, Port Stephens Council in-house solicitor Lisa Marshall, and barrister Brenda Tronson of Level 22 Chambers; Tronson was also accompanied by a secondary unidentified barrister. It seems you can never have enough artiliery for a defenceless opponent. The Applicant Port Stephens Council’s Governance Manager / Corporate Policeman Tony Leslie Wickham had sat through the proceedings with a look that could curdle milk. Council was determined to secure this order. It had failed earlier in 2017, now it was back in full force for a second go.
Why not? The GIPA Act doesn’t make a limit on the number of Section 110 Applications an agency can seek against the same victim, might as well go for it a second time!
The course of action had been recommended by Francis Marks personally at a Case Conference in December 2019, openly, blatantly. At the time of that recommendation he had instructed Council “now I want lots of documents!” He would get this order across the line one way or another to ensure Council got its illusive wish. At the hearing on 20th February 2020 Marks instructed Tony Wickham to provide his Sworn Affidavit (which contained instances of perjury) in WORD format.
No, Marks did not instruct Webb to provide hers. His interest was Council. He had no interest in Webb, her predicament, nor the implications of his forthcoming decision.
Marks did nothing to hide where the hearing was going. It was just a formality. As anticipated, on 11th March 2020 Marks published his scathing decision including the full unredacted publication of Tony Wickham’s Affidavit. This on its own raises red punitive flags as it’s not normal protocol the NCAT makes affidavits and evidence available to the public, yet here we have a presiding member giving it to the whole world for free and without petition…………….
In contravention of the legislation Marks had given Council what it wanted in full; no consequence the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110 doesn’t make provision for acting in concert, acting jointly, or orders in perpetuity. Topped off for further insult, Marks made provision for a Costs Application despite there being no provision for such under the GIPA Act 2009 the enabling legislation. None of it was of any consequence to Marks. He knew it would take a mammoth effort to go through the Appeal process. He had made orders in breach of the legislation, he had acted disgracefully in his capacity as an NCAT Principal Member, and he knew he was immune from any accountability whatsoever. He had deliberately used judicial proceedings to humiliate and punish the intended target and it would be in the public domain for all time regardless of what came afterwards.
And so on 11th March 2020 on publication of the decision Webb received many phone calls; people were outraged this had occurred, that the Tribunal had acted in this way, and all saying the decision demanded appealing on numerous errors in law and blatant bias. They also reiterated it was a set up.
Webb was overwhelmed, devastated, shocked, not sure where to go or what to do. Her husband Paul McEwan reached out to a barrister who seemed to stand out on the internet’s barrister advertisements; Patrick Griffin of Seventh Floor Garfield Barwick Chambers Sydney. Griffin had a nice face. He looked the part. He was pro-mediation and endorsed public interest advocacy. His bio showed his interest in administrative law which is what GIPA is.
Mr McEwan had the first call, introduced himself and briefly explained Webb’s situation. Webb would follow up with her interpretation of what needed to be done, what the goal was, and how she might approach this matter within the Appeal Panel environment of NCAT.
Webb followed up with a call where Griffin told her “I’m VERY expensive! I charge $500.00 an hour! Marks should have retired years ago. I don’t think you have a case.”
Webb and McEwan made a payment plan to pay the $2,420.00 fees to Griffin for the phone calls and review of her documentation. Month by month the payments were made on time.
Today Webb made the final payment, also informing Griffin she had won her appeal.
No congratulations. Oh well. Perhaps he was embarrassed a non-legal unrepresented individual had achieved what he thought to be impossible.
“The more I am involved in administrative proceedings, the more I face the reality getting assistance is all about money. If you don’t have the cash, you’re on your own. What’s happened to advocacy, those with knowledge helping those without it; where is the shoulder of support? All the academic letters and club memberships behind an individual’s name and title mean nothing if there’s no action, it’s just lip service, so disappointing particularly when these are the public's role models,” stated Webb.
Patrick Griffin an experienced administrative law proponent had also missed the obvious: the case brought by Port Stephens Council, meeting Marks’ instruction “I want lots of documents!”, relitigating matters which were finalised and no longer open to appeal or relitigation was in fact barred by the (400) four hundred year old legal principle of Res Judicata or Double Jeopardy. The NCAT had no jurisdictional powers of discretion to hear the matter. None.
Fancy that! An ex-judge (okay not a real judge, a Clayton’s Judge) acting in contradiction to the Res Judicata principle. It’s not possible he was ignorant to it.
“I will never accept that all these legal beagles including Francis Marks, Patrick Griffin, Brenda Tronson, Carlo Zoppo, Matthew Harker, Lisa Marshall or Tony Wickham lacked knowledge of the legal principle of Res Judicata. Never,” stated Webb. “They all knew and turned their backs on it. Griffin could have knocked this on the head with one mighty blow; didn’t even need a full argument. As for Marks, overturning his atrocious legally-defective decision by proving he acted with bias against me, well that’s a victory I will continue to enjoy and he can never take that from me. He’s just a bitter delusional old man who’s totally outlived his use-by date. They should all be reported for misconduct as officers of the court; not to mention taking and spending public monies under a false premise.” Marks’ bias decision is here. Webb’s victorious Appeal Panel decision is here.
Contact: Francis Marks, LinkedIn Australia
Patrick Griffin, Patrick.griffin@7gbc.com.au Brenda Tronson, btronson@level22.com.au
Marks had (3) three joined matters to determine over (1) one day, but he tells it as (2) two days.
The Respondent in the proceedings was Telina Webb, unrepresented against a fleet of solicitors including Carlo Zoppo and Matthew Harker of Lindsay Taylor Lawyers, Port Stephens Council in-house solicitor Lisa Marshall, and barrister Brenda Tronson of Level 22 Chambers; Tronson was also accompanied by a secondary unidentified barrister. It seems you can never have enough artiliery for a defenceless opponent. The Applicant Port Stephens Council’s Governance Manager / Corporate Policeman Tony Leslie Wickham had sat through the proceedings with a look that could curdle milk. Council was determined to secure this order. It had failed earlier in 2017, now it was back in full force for a second go.
Why not? The GIPA Act doesn’t make a limit on the number of Section 110 Applications an agency can seek against the same victim, might as well go for it a second time!
The course of action had been recommended by Francis Marks personally at a Case Conference in December 2019, openly, blatantly. At the time of that recommendation he had instructed Council “now I want lots of documents!” He would get this order across the line one way or another to ensure Council got its illusive wish. At the hearing on 20th February 2020 Marks instructed Tony Wickham to provide his Sworn Affidavit (which contained instances of perjury) in WORD format.
No, Marks did not instruct Webb to provide hers. His interest was Council. He had no interest in Webb, her predicament, nor the implications of his forthcoming decision.
Marks did nothing to hide where the hearing was going. It was just a formality. As anticipated, on 11th March 2020 Marks published his scathing decision including the full unredacted publication of Tony Wickham’s Affidavit. This on its own raises red punitive flags as it’s not normal protocol the NCAT makes affidavits and evidence available to the public, yet here we have a presiding member giving it to the whole world for free and without petition…………….
In contravention of the legislation Marks had given Council what it wanted in full; no consequence the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110 doesn’t make provision for acting in concert, acting jointly, or orders in perpetuity. Topped off for further insult, Marks made provision for a Costs Application despite there being no provision for such under the GIPA Act 2009 the enabling legislation. None of it was of any consequence to Marks. He knew it would take a mammoth effort to go through the Appeal process. He had made orders in breach of the legislation, he had acted disgracefully in his capacity as an NCAT Principal Member, and he knew he was immune from any accountability whatsoever. He had deliberately used judicial proceedings to humiliate and punish the intended target and it would be in the public domain for all time regardless of what came afterwards.
And so on 11th March 2020 on publication of the decision Webb received many phone calls; people were outraged this had occurred, that the Tribunal had acted in this way, and all saying the decision demanded appealing on numerous errors in law and blatant bias. They also reiterated it was a set up.
Webb was overwhelmed, devastated, shocked, not sure where to go or what to do. Her husband Paul McEwan reached out to a barrister who seemed to stand out on the internet’s barrister advertisements; Patrick Griffin of Seventh Floor Garfield Barwick Chambers Sydney. Griffin had a nice face. He looked the part. He was pro-mediation and endorsed public interest advocacy. His bio showed his interest in administrative law which is what GIPA is.
Mr McEwan had the first call, introduced himself and briefly explained Webb’s situation. Webb would follow up with her interpretation of what needed to be done, what the goal was, and how she might approach this matter within the Appeal Panel environment of NCAT.
Webb followed up with a call where Griffin told her “I’m VERY expensive! I charge $500.00 an hour! Marks should have retired years ago. I don’t think you have a case.”
Webb and McEwan made a payment plan to pay the $2,420.00 fees to Griffin for the phone calls and review of her documentation. Month by month the payments were made on time.
Today Webb made the final payment, also informing Griffin she had won her appeal.
No congratulations. Oh well. Perhaps he was embarrassed a non-legal unrepresented individual had achieved what he thought to be impossible.
“The more I am involved in administrative proceedings, the more I face the reality getting assistance is all about money. If you don’t have the cash, you’re on your own. What’s happened to advocacy, those with knowledge helping those without it; where is the shoulder of support? All the academic letters and club memberships behind an individual’s name and title mean nothing if there’s no action, it’s just lip service, so disappointing particularly when these are the public's role models,” stated Webb.
Patrick Griffin an experienced administrative law proponent had also missed the obvious: the case brought by Port Stephens Council, meeting Marks’ instruction “I want lots of documents!”, relitigating matters which were finalised and no longer open to appeal or relitigation was in fact barred by the (400) four hundred year old legal principle of Res Judicata or Double Jeopardy. The NCAT had no jurisdictional powers of discretion to hear the matter. None.
Fancy that! An ex-judge (okay not a real judge, a Clayton’s Judge) acting in contradiction to the Res Judicata principle. It’s not possible he was ignorant to it.
“I will never accept that all these legal beagles including Francis Marks, Patrick Griffin, Brenda Tronson, Carlo Zoppo, Matthew Harker, Lisa Marshall or Tony Wickham lacked knowledge of the legal principle of Res Judicata. Never,” stated Webb. “They all knew and turned their backs on it. Griffin could have knocked this on the head with one mighty blow; didn’t even need a full argument. As for Marks, overturning his atrocious legally-defective decision by proving he acted with bias against me, well that’s a victory I will continue to enjoy and he can never take that from me. He’s just a bitter delusional old man who’s totally outlived his use-by date. They should all be reported for misconduct as officers of the court; not to mention taking and spending public monies under a false premise.” Marks’ bias decision is here. Webb’s victorious Appeal Panel decision is here.
Contact: Francis Marks, LinkedIn Australia
Patrick Griffin, Patrick.griffin@7gbc.com.au Brenda Tronson, btronson@level22.com.au