Australia, June 3 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 5:

1. By Notice of Motion filed on 17 April 2025, Mr Conneely sought an order that:

"Judgement [sic] to be set aside due to forgery on the following documents Deed of Company Arrangement including Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity, and review the [Justice Nixon] decision as he breached his fiduciary duty and fiduciary responsibility on 14 April 2025 in the constructive trust matter 2023/00230363."

2. I understand that application to refer to a careful ex tempore judgment delivered by Nixon J on 14 April 2025, which I address below. There was no appearance by Mr Conneely in respect of the motion today, in circumstances that I address below.

3. The Notice of Motion was in turn supported, at least to some extent, by Mr Conneely's affidavit dated 17 April 2025. That affidavit commenced with the observation that:

"I, Michael Joseph am the authorized representative for the legal name for Michael Joseph Conneely defendant in this matter."

I pause to note that the approach adopted in that paragraph, which seeks to distinguish the representative and the real person, is characteristic of the "sovereign citizen" ideology so far as it involves a suggested distinction between a "real" person and a legal person who deals with the state. The affidavit then goes on to advance reference to several legal maxims, with biblical references in support of them, and then asserts that Nixon J failed to carry out "fiduciary obligations" in respect of his judgment delivered on 14 April. As will emerge below, there seems to me to be no basis for that suggestion.

4. Mr Conneely then observed that:

"I, Michael Joseph petition the court that the Judgement to be set aside due to forgery on the following documents Deed of Company Arrangement including the Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity and review the [Justice Nixon] decision as he breached his fiduciary duty and fiduciary responsibility on 14 April 2025 in the constructive trust matter 2023/00230363."

5. That paragraph broadly corresponds to the relief sought in the Notice of Motion. However, it provides no evidentiary basis by way of the identification of underlying facts in admissible form, for any allegation of forgery in respect of the Deed of Company Arrangement or in a Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity to which reference appears to have been made at the previous application heard by Nixon J. I also note that the "judgment to be set aside" may there refer to the judgment of Nixon J, although the relief which the Plaintiffs sought before Nixon J depended upon a judgment which I delivered in December 2024 ([2024] NSWSC 1585), although Mr Conneely had not appeared at the hearing following which that judgment was delivered.

6. Turning to the history of this application, after Mr Conneely's Notice of Motion dated 17 April 2025 was filed, it was originally made returnable before a Registrar, but there was no utility in that course where a Registrar plainly had no power to set aside the judgment of Nixon J. By email dated 22 April 2025, my Associate advised the parties, including Mr Conneely, that the matter would be listed in the Corporations Motions List on 5 May 2025.

7. At 8.34pm on the Sunday night before the hearing, an email was sent to my Associate from the email address to which I referred above, which commenced with a statement that "notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent"; drew attention that it was addressed to all involved RICO participants, that apparently being a reference to the United States legislation directed to criminal enterprises, which has no apparent application in respect of these proceedings; continued with several biblical references; and then indicated that Mr Conneely "the Executor in Office and Beneficiary of the Cestui Que Vie Trust called Michael Joseph Conneely need to adjourn the matter due to family reasons and being out of the State of New South Wales." I put aside the reference to a trust in that regard, and note that there is no evidence as to any family reasons or absence from the State that would justify an adjournment, particularly in circumstances where the application is one brought by Mr Conneely which seeks to set aside an order for possession of property.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196a941ae2ebc5610baca2bb)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.