IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE

S CI 2016 03782 BETWEEN

Thanasis Raptis, 25 Benjamin Street, Parkville 3052 Plaintiff –

and –

City of Melbourne – First Defendant 333 Choice Properties P/L – Second Defendant Defendants

PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF – NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 29 MAY 2017 & SUMMONS DATED 22 JUNE 2017

Date of document: 29 June 2017 Filed on behalf of: Thanasis Raptis Prepared by: Thanasis Raptis Tel: (03) 9741 5477 Fax: (03) N/A Email: [email protected]

PREFACE:

This supporting submission responds to 3 questions arising from GENERAL FORM OF ORDER issued by Arnold Bloch Leibler & GENERAL FORM OF ORDER issued by The Honourable Justice Croft reference ORIGINATING PROCESS: Notice of appeal dated 29 May 2017 and HOW OBTAINED: Plaintiffs summons dated 22 June 2017;

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 1

Did his Honour err in finding at paragraph [62] of the Judgment that costs follow the event?

1. The Notice of Appeal lodged 29 May 2017, appeals the order of all cost orders special cost orders – future cost orders - determinations made incidentally to paragraph 62 of the 10 May 2017 judgement, following the event of dismissing the proceedings for illegally leased premises in ‘associated retail development’ of 2 restaurants, in prohitition of the Laws for Peace, Order and Good Government of the State Government – Parliament, Commonwealth of Australia, in contravenention to its decision that there will be no ‘associated retail development’ except of ‘1 restaurant and a bank’, making any lease drawn / issued, illegal and unenforceable as well as not bound under the Retail Leases Act 2003, because the Parliament stated so;

Reference - Directions Hearing - 14 October 2016 - Transcript, page 36, lines 1621, final paragraph of this submission and;

1

Reference - Summons dated 22 June 2017 paragraph 1, i) & ii);

Where the element of prohibition by the Parliament or the legal doctrine of illegallity was ignored, reference paragraph 42 of the 10 May 2017 judgement, VSC [247];

2

2. Any cost orders incidentally to paragraph 62 either made on a standard basis indemnity basis – special cost basis - costs for security, or sequentially to the judgment of 10 May 2017, contravened the Overarching Obligations as set out in paragraphs 27 to 35 of the Summons dated 22 June 2017, REG 28A of the SUPREME COURT (GENERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2015 as to commencement of proceedings, as well as ignored the fact that an attempt by the Plaintiff to resolve the matter, paragraph 36, was ignored prior any offer / threats addressing the Second Defendant’s costs to be incurred in proceedings.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2

Should costs follow the event either in part or in full?

3. Any cost orders or any consequential relief derived following the 10 May 2017 judgment made by the Second Defendant, was misleading and deceptive, supporting a non-permitted ‘associated retail development’ of 2 restaurants by the State Government – Parliament - 1989 Granted Permit to exist, in prohibition of the Laws for Peace, Order and Good Government of the Commonwealth, enforcing unjust terms to acquire property by the Second Defendant, the State and City of Melbourne, in contravention to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1975, subsection 51(xxxi), Reference - Summons dated 22 June 2017, paragraph 2

4. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 28A.01 (3) SUPREME COURT (GENERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2015, any costs orders under the Order made 11 May 2017 by Associate Justice Mukhtar, could not then or now apply, requiring to be discharged, as proceedings did not commence upon filing an Originating process in RedCrest under Order 28A (Order on taxation REG 63.56), in Form 8AC, and / or could be applied to the commercial - insurance list or any of the lists under an Order 28 A (1) (a) – (d) below. It was and is a civil proceeding.

3

5. Order 28A (Order on taxation REG 63.56) is applied if proceedings are to be entered under any commercial insurance , TEC, RedCrest or intellectual list, 28A(1)(a)(b)(c) or (d), and unless the Court corrects it with [otherwise] or [orders – (Order on taxation REG 63.56),

“this Order continues to apply to a proceeding referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), even if the proceeding is removed from the relevant List, under 28A(3); (3) Unless the Court otherwise orders, this Order continues to apply to a proceeding referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) even if the proceeding is removed from the relevant List. 6. The 15 September 2016 - Application SCI 2016 03782, was lodged at the Court Registry as a special procedure seeking order(s) to dispense the requirements of 45(2)(a), rules 5.03(1) and 8.02 and under 45(3) (a) & (b) an order to proceed, being an urgent case saving time and expense for the parties “providing the facts that the Lease has been issued and drawn illegally against restaurant premises registered as a Food Business with City of Melbourne contravening the 1989 State Government Granted Permit , as well as their authority as the only Authority to perform to the requirements of that Permit for only 1 restaurant permitted in the 333 Collins street building”; Reference paragraph 31 of the Summons dated 22 June 2017

7. The Associate Judge did not dispense the requirements of 45(2)(a), rules 5.03(1) and 8.02 and under 45(3) (a) & (b), an order to proceed and did not give Judgment to the Plaintiff’s - Relief Sought and did not refer it to a Judge of the Court, on notice to the Defendants in Form 45B, for an order under REG 45.05(6);

“(6) Judgment shall not be given for the plaintiff, or an order made, for the relief or remedy sought in the originating motion or otherwise except on application made to an Associate Judge or, if the Associate Judge does not have authority to give the judgment or make the order sought by the plaintiff, to a Judge of the Court, on notice to the defendant in Form 45B.”

4

8. The proceedings did not commence by filing an Originating process in RedCrest under order 28A (Order on taxation REG 63.56) and the Second Defendant’s representative, Arnold Bloch Leibler (ABL), did not file their notice of ‘Conditional Appearance’ electronically in RedCrest under order 28A and in Form 8AC. ABL filed a ‘Conditional Appearance’ at the Court Registry on the 29 September 2016 in Form 8B, extracted;

9. ABL filed a ‘Conditional Appearance’ to contest the Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction by misleading and deceiving that it had ‘factual and legal material’ available to defend the case, knowing, that ‘associated retail development’ 5

permitted 1 and not 2 restaurants and is not bound under the Retail Leases Act 2003, as the ‘associated retail development’ was and is, in prohibition to the Laws for Peace, Order and Good Government of the Commonwealth; 10. The Blu Nite leased premises being premises in a non-permitted ‘associated retail development’ were in prohibition of the 1989 State Government – Parliament Granted Permit and in contravention of the Overarching Obligations to not file an appearance if they (ABL) did not have the factual and legal material at the return day of Summons on Originating Motion, the 14 October 2016 - Directions Hearing. Reference - Summons dated 22 June 2017 paragraph 35(c), and page 34, lines 927 of the Transcript of the 14 October 2016 - Directions Hearing;

11. At the 14 October 2016 - Directions Hearing, proceedings did commence such as not to prevent the Defendant(s) filing a substantive document merely because of their failure to comply with certification requirement(s) under the SECT 45 of Overarching Obligations of the Civil Procedure Act 2010;

6

CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT 2010 - SECT 45 Proceedings may be commenced or substantive documents filed despite failure to certify Unless a court otherwise orders, a court may not prevent the commencement of civil proceedings in the court or the filing of any substantive document by a party to a civil proceeding merely because of a failure to comply with any certification requirement under this Part.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 3

Did his Honour err in finding in the Cost Determination that that the plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of its summons filed on 10 November 2016 and of its application for special cost orders on the indemnity basis?

12. At the 14 October 2016 - Directions Hearing, the Associate Justice Mukhtar dispensed the Second Defendant’s out of time ‘Conditional Appearance’ filed in Form 8B, 29 September 2016 - r 8.08(2), allowing the Second Defendant under REG 8.08(3) to make an application for a Court order, Order 5, and file a Summons and Affidavit on 10 November 2016 under REG 8.08(4), as though the proceedings commenced by filing an Originating process in RedCrest under order 28A (Order on taxation REG 63.56) in Form 8AC. Orders issued 30 May 2017, a day after the Notice of Appeal was lodged 29 May 2017;

Reference - AFFIDAVIT (SUPPORTING) ZERVOS LAWYERS – ARNOLD BLOCH LEIBLER– 29 MAY 2017],

... allowed sequential applications to be made, originating from the 10 November

2016, ABL - Summons.

Reference - AFFIDAVIT (SUPPORTING) - NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2017-05-29 – COURT REGISTRY – PREJUDICED CORRESPONDENCE, dated 15 June 2017, paragraph 3-5 & 9, pages 10-13.

7

13. On the 2 February 2017 ABL terminated the Lease on behalf 333 Choice Properties P/L and thereby were not entitled to any cost compensation for the remaining years of the term of the lease, beyond the bank guarantee covering 6 months. The contravening of the Common Law Division and the classification of the proceeding under the commercial insurance list division as having commenced under order 28A, permitting the Second Defendant filed the 10 November 2016 Summons and Affidavit, allowing the making of sequential applications for costs to be made without having factual and legal material, based on and following the 10 May 2017 judgement, paragraph 4 above.

8

OTHER MATTERS:

14. The Plaintiff continues to seek from the Honourable Justice Croft the release of the “Without Prejudice” offer made 8+ months prior to the Second Defendant’s ‘Calderbank offer’ correspondence, be ‘With Prejudice’ and admissible; Reference – Summons dated 22 June 2017 – paragraph 36

And

... the ‘disclosure of the existing audio recording file from the Hearing 6 March 2017’ Reference – Summons dated 22 June 2017 – paragraphs 37 & 38

CLOSING:

Reference – Summons dated 22 June 2017 – paragraph 2;

Reference – Summons dated 22 June 2017 – paragraph 3;

9

The Supreme Court Jurisdiction - Parliament as referenced in the Directions Hearing - 14 October 2016 - Transcript, page 36, lines 16-21;

Thanasis Raptis Plaintiff

10