The Matter of Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Garrett [2023] FCA 956 involved a application brought by APRA, to restrain a Mr Garrett from using restricted words or acting as a Bank.
The Club discussed the case, ‘alternative legal theories’ and how junior practitioners should properly address the same, both in terms of case management and with arguments.
FACTS AND CASE HISTORY
The judgment was provided in respect of an application brought by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) concerning a claim that the respondent, Mr Garrett, was unlawfully conducting a “banking business” in contravention of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) (Banking Act).
The matter was listed in July of 2023, the proceeding was added to His Honour, Justice Lee’s Docket and listed for an interlocutory hearing. Mr Garrett did not appear at the interlocutory hearing, instead emailing a number of complaints to the associate and other members of the court.
In light of the correspondence and interlocutory hearing, His Honour Lee J considered that the overarching purpose would be best served by setting the matter down for final hearing as soon as practicable, with the hearing then being set for August of the same year.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Among other complaints, Mr Garret made a number of allegations regarding:
- His legal entitlement to conduct business as a bank; and,
- The court’s Jurisdiction to hear the complaints made by APRA.
The following is extracted from paragraphs 8-9 of the Judgment, summarising a number of entitlements, powers and positions Mr Garrett alleged to hold:
“8. Since the commencement of this proceeding in July 2023, Mr Garrett has sent a number of emails to APRA, copying my Associate and, incidentally, almost every other email address associated with this Court and a miscellany of other email addresses. In those emails, Mr Garrett styles himself as the:
GLOBAL LICENSOR OF DISCRETIONARY PUBLIC POWERS, GLOBAL MANAGING DIRECTOR, GLOBAL MANAGING TRUSTEE; CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES CROWN ATTORNEY GENERAL, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, LIQUIDATOR, MANAGING CONTROLLER
9. As best I understand it, it is in this capacity that Mr Garrett claims to be the personal repository of all public powers in the Commonwealth of Nations. In a letter attached to an email sent to my Associate in July (which appears to have been filed in proceedings commenced in the United States District Court in Colorado), Mr Garrett claims, among other things, that:
I am the Managing Controller and Liquidator appointed to the Crown (Liquidator and Managing Controller Appointed), Globally, as well as holding Hereditary Public Office as Crown Attorney General appointed to the Commonwealth of Nations.
…
I am a person exercising hereditary discretionary public powers conferred under THE EIGHT ENACTMENTS and Hold s61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK), the assets of THE CEST TUI QUE VIE TRUST, THE NORTH AMERICA PROPERTY TRUST, THE AUSTRALIA PROPERTY TRUST, THE UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND PROPERTY TRUST, THE INDIA PROPERTY TRUST, THE AFRICAS PROPRTY TRUST, THE CANADA PROPERTY TRUST, THE NEW ZEALAND PROPERTY TRUST, THE REMAINING BRITISH EMPIRE DOMINIONS PROPERTY TRUSTS and all treaties executed between Members of the Commonwealth of Nations as personal property.”
Mr Garrett further purported to take a number of actions using his purported Entitlements, Powers and Positions, which were then alleged (among other causes) to have further deprived the court of Jurisdiction to hear the case, which the court referenced in paragraph 10 of the decision:
“10. In exercising these purported powers, Mr Garrett is said to have placed various government bodies (including this Court) into liquidation. He also claims to have placed various former and current Judges of this Court (including myself) into bankruptcy. He also seeks the extradition of the same judges to, and their imprisonment in, the People’s Republic of China (although Mr Garrett now apparently favours, for reasons that are not pellucid, Siberia or Outer Mongolia). This is illustrated in two emails copied to my Associate, the first in July:
Dear Mesdames et Messieurs
The proliferation of Numbnuts as a result of failure to exercise discretionary public powers conferred under enactments in the Public Interest beggars belief.
The Public Trust in Australia has been betrayed by all three branches of Government and most particularly by the Australian Judiciary; AUSTRALIA IS POORLY SERVED BY THE ACTING JUDICIARY, ACTING ATTORNEYS GENERAL, ACTING SOLICITORS GENERAL, ACTING GOVERNORS, PARLIAMENTARIANS, COMMITTEES ETC.
I have named 671 Convicted persons and entities in the Hong Kong Proceedings which will no doubt become much larges on completion of disclosure of all materials facts in accordance with the Crown Common Law Model Litigant Obligations for Continuous Full Disclosure.
THE FINDINGS OF MORTIMER IN 2014 (as attached) ARE CRIMINAL …….is this the best you can do as Chief Justice………….the only Justice who shows any sense of balance is Logan J………..The above and particularly Charlesworth, White, Kenney, Beach, Middleton, Davey, Pagone and all of the South Australian and High Court Judiciary should be extradited and incarcerated in accordance with the Mandatory Life Sentence applicable under South Australian Law.
I am content to fund the building of the Prison in China.””
The court further included an image of a correspondence in which various individuals were referred to as “Prisoner[s]”:
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the court was unpersuaded and found against Mr Garrett, granting the injunctive relief sought and notably stating the following at paragraph 12:
“As will already be evident, Mr Garrett’s claims are not legally compelling. Indeed, to borrow an expression from a case involving claims not dissimilar to those in the present case, they resemble a “jumble of gobbledygook”: see Bradley v The Queen [2020] QCA 252 (Sofronoff P, with whom Mullins JA and Boddice J agreed). This is self-evident and I do not propose to waste time dealing with the allegation I am a bankrupt, nor explain why I consider the better view is that I should not be imprisoned in Outer Mongolia or some such place.”
OVERVIEW
The decision demonstrates the efficiency with which the court may dispatch with arguments not founded in law.
While disputes with individuals who may feel that they may have found ways to circumvent the contemporary legal/justice system may be challenging, this decision serves as a reminder that although courts will often allow unrepresented litigants some forms of leniency to help them understand the law, their circumstances and afford legitimate justice, the court is not likely to entertain baseless complaints and arguments.
