SENATOR.KINGSLEYFERDINANDS: 2012

Sunday, December 23, 2012

SENATOR FERDINANDS DONATES $$25 MILLION TO CHURCH OF THE FERINGOD

SENATOR FERDINANDS HAS DONATED $25 MILLION DOLLARS TO THE FERINGOD. THE CHURCH WELCOMES THE MONEY AND THE GIFT. SENATOR FERDINANDS SAYS, 'Life is exciting and full of adventure".

Friday, November 2, 2012

KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: AND THERE IS BEYOND BELIEF

	[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] High Court of Australia Transcripts

You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> High Court of Australia Transcripts >> 2012 >> [2012] HCATrans 266

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Documents] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Ferdinands v Minister for Defence [2012] HCATrans 266 (24 October 2012)

Last Updated: 29 October 2012

[2012] HCATrans 266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A22 of 2012

B e t w e e n -

TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS

Plaintiff

and

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE

Defendant

Application for order to show cause

CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM MELBOURNE BY VIDEO LINK TO ADELAIDE

ON WEDNESDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2012, AT 10.13 AM

MR P.H. D’ASSUMPCAO: If your Honour pleases, I appear for the defendant, the Minister for Defence. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HER HONOUR: Thank you. Yes, Mr d’Assumpcao.

MR D’ASSUMPCAO: Your Honour, there has been no attendance by the plaintiff at this time. In Adelaide time it is now approximately 9.43 am. In the time available, I did a quick survey of the rules and I could not find a relative rule relating to dismissing the application for failing to attend other than in the context of rule 13 which applies to interlocutory applications or other applications.

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MR D’ASSUMPCAO: In the circumstances, the defendant would pursue the application for dismissal pursuant to rule 27.094, your Honour, and I acknowledge at the outset that the Court’s powers under that rule are only to be exercised in the clearest of cases and where the application is manifestly groundless. Your Honour, the defendant relies on the affidavit of Cabrini Rita Shepherd affirmed on 13 September 2012.

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. I have read that.

MR D’ASSUMPCAO: Thank you, your Honour. You will find some familiar judgments in there.

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MR D’ASSUMPCAO: Your Honour, I have also filed an outline of submissions on Monday and a list of authorities yesterday.

HER HONOUR: Yes, I have those and read those.

MR D’ASSUMPCAO: Thank you. I respectfully make two short points in relation to the submissions. The first point is that the gist of the plaintiff’s application, which rests substantially on section 75(v) relief, seeks to compel the Minister to produce certain documents. The granting of that relief, your Honour, in my respectful submission would be premature, and I say that because that picks up the language adopted by Justice Kirby both in Re Heerey, which is item number 2 on the list of authorities, and also in Re Carmody; Ex parte Glennan [2000] HCA 37; 173 ALR 145. I will turn to that in a moment, but the point being, your Honour, that in the circumstances of this case where other avenues should have been exhausted. Provision or the issuing of constitutional writs should not even, in my respectful submission, be considered. In those circumstances, the proceeding amounts to an abuse of process.

I had in mind to direct your attention to some particular paragraphs in Glennan; that is the decision of Justices Gummow, Hayne and Callinan. In particular, your Honour, that was a case where the Commissioner had disallowed an objection to a taxation assessment and the Court observed that the Taxation Administration Act 1953 gave a right of appeal to the then appellant and then to the Federal Court.

The appellant had been unsuccessful before the Federal Court. He filed an application for special leave but then discontinued that and on the same day he discontinued it – this is relevantly at about paragraph 5, your Honour, by way of background - - -

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

MR D’ASSUMPCAO: On the day he discontinued he commenced an application in the High Court in its original jurisdiction. The then Chief Justice dismissed that application at a time when the appellant was unrepresented. The appellant appealed and was represented by senior counsel. On the appeal, the appellant argued that the challenge to the Commissioner’s assessment – this is at about paragraph 15, your Honour, on page 254, the appellant contended that his challenge to the Commissioner’s assessment lay as a constitutional right, independent of the review process available under the Administration Act.

At paragraph 17, the Court discussed section 75(v) of the Constitution and relevantly said that it is necessary to show “jurisdictional error” of the issue of those writs – that is a trite proposition of course – and secondly, that the remedies “do not lie as a right”:

One matter to be taken into account is the existence of jurisdiction such as that provided for in Pt IVC of the Administration Act . . . and ending with the appellate jurisdiction of this court under s 73 of the Constitution.

Their Honours then remarked that the doctrine expressed by Justice Kirby in Re Heerey represents the current doctrine of the Court. Now, in Re Heerey, your Honour, the applicant had unsuccessfully challenged a decision of Justice Mansfield before the Full Federal Court in relation to a sequestration order and rather than seeking special leave the applicant commenced proceeding in the original jurisdiction against the judges of the Federal Court. What Justice Kirby said at paragraph 17, if your Honour has that decision to hand, is important, in my submission. His Honour said:

Although this court has the jurisdiction to provide that relief –

namely constitutional relief –

against the respondents, and the power to do so if the other requirements of law are fulfilled, ordinarily, in a case of a judgment of a federal court, where an appellate facility is available, this court will, as a matter of discretion, refuse to issue a constitutional writ. It will do so where the applicant has failed, or omitted, to engage the appellate jurisdiction as provided by s 73 of the Constitution. This approach is taken to ensure that parties, with rights to seek special leave to appeal, do not, without good reason, bypass the primary means envisaged by the Constitution for the correction of alleged judicial error nor circumvent the legislative arrangements that have been adopted requiring the special leave first be obtained in appeals to this court.

His Honour at paragraph 18 refers to his earlier decision of Carmody, noting that:

no hard and fast rules can be laid down . . . the writ may be regarded as premature if the party’s complaint should properly have been prosecuted first as an appeal. The invocation of the original jurisdiction of this court under s 75(v) of the Constitution was refused in Glennan as a matter of discretion. The same approach should be adopted here. No other approach would uphold the constitutional scheme and the statutory procedures for special leave which are a protection for litigants generally, as well as for this court.

Now, it is respectfully submitted that the rationale behind the comment, that is a protection for the court is precisely to avoid the situation of an abuse of process by instituting proceedings where a person has a statutory right of review by the proper channels. In this case, the plaintiff would have had a right of review under the Freedom of Information Act within the Department of Defence, then to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, if it had jurisdiction, then to the Federal Court and up it goes ending in the High Court.

The second point I make, your Honour, which is critical is that the plaintiff is using this proceeding with a view to collaterally attacking the 1999 decision before the Defence Force Magistrate. Your Honour will recall making some remarks in June last year when the plaintiff was before you in a separate action and the remarks were to the effect that the plaintiff – there was yet another incident by the plaintiff of collaterally attacking that decision and your Honour did not permit that to proceed as it was an abuse of process because the plaintiff had exhausted all avenues of

appeal. Your Honour also noted that the documentation in that matter was prolix and embarrassing in form and it is my submission that those remarks are apposite to the material placed before the Court in this application.

Your Honour submitted that in light of the undisputed facts in Ms Shepherd’s affidavit, and having regard to the matters in the Minister’s written submissions, the present proceeding is groundless. It displays a vexatious nature and is an abuse of process of the Court, and to that end the defendant invokes rule 27.09.4. If the Court pleases.

HER HONOUR: Thank you very much.

This is the return of a summons filed on 17 September 2012 by the Minister for Defence under rule 27.09.4 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) seeking to have the plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause summarily dismissed on the grounds that it does not disclose a cause of action. The summons also seeks to have the action dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff was a corporal in the Australian Defence Force. On 4 November 1999, he was convicted by a Defence Force Magistrate of one count of assault on an inferior officer contrary to section 34(1) of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth). The plaintiff lodged an appeal against his conviction to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal but this appeal was ultimately dismissed on the basis that the Defence Force Magistrate’s findings were open to him and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. On 30 November 2004, a delegate of the Chief of the Army, Brigadier Appleton, discharged the plaintiff from the Australian Defence Force.

These events have formed the basis for a series of proceedings initiated by the plaintiff in the Federal Court of Australia and in this Court, including the present proceedings. Some of the history of these proceedings has been explained in Ferdinands v Minister for Defence [2011], HCATrans 173, and does not need to be repeated.

On 13 July 2012, the plaintiff filed a fresh application for an order to show cause. The application is directed to the defendant, the Minister for Defence, and relates primarily to the defendant’s failure to respond to a letter sent by the plaintiff on 11 May 2012 requesting access to a series of documents relating to an inquiry into the plaintiff’s conviction of November 1999.

The plaintiff seeks various forms of relief, including orders:

(a) compelling the defendant to provide to the plaintiff copies of the documents requests in his letter of 11 May 2012;

(b) compelling all Ministers of the Crown lawfully and properly to attend to the administration of their portfolios and offices; and

“Can the Chief of Army appoint a legal defence counsel to a soldier in the Australian Army who has been accused and charged with service offences if that soldier has refused any Australian Army legal assistance and wishes to appoint his own legal advisers and team to defend charges against him?”

An affidavit has been sworn by Cabrini Rita Shepherd on 13 September 2012 and filed in support of the defendant’s summons. The plaintiff has sworn and filed two affidavits dated 13 July 2012 and 5 October 2012, the latter being specifically directed to opposing the defendant’s summons seeking summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause.

The plaintiff has failed to appear today.

An application such as this for constitutional writs of certiorari and mandamus rests substantially on section 75(v) of the Constitution: Re Carmody; Ex parte Glennan [2000] HCA 37; (2000) 74 ALJR 1118; 173 ALR 145. When the defendant seeks summary dismissal of the show cause action, as here, it is for the plaintiff to show at least an arguable case for the relief sought. The arguable case must be in respect of some error amounting to a jurisdictional error by the Minister. Further, the remedies for which section 75(v) provides do not lie as of right: Glennan v Commissioner of Taxation (2003) 198 ALR 250 at 254 paragraph 17 per Justices Gummow, Hayne and Callinan.

The plaintiff’s letter of 11 May 2012 did not comply with the requirements for a valid request for access to documents under section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (Cth). In his letter, the plaintiff specifically states that he does “not need to go through Freedom of Information processes”. In the absence of a valid request under the Freedom of Information Act 1989 (Cth), the plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause amounts to little more than an attempt to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court in order to compel a Minister to answer a letter.

The outline of submissions filed by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s summons consists of some 121 paragraphs and shows that the present application constitutes yet another attempt by the plaintiff to collaterally challenge his conviction of 4 November 1999 and the decision of the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal referred to above. The plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause, supporting affidavit material and his outline of submissions are prolix and embarrassing in form. They are barely intelligible and disclose no basis for the grant of the relief sought.

Further, in all the circumstances, including the history of this litigation, the proceedings are bound to fail; therefore they are vexatious: Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioner [1949] HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91. It follows that the proceedings should stand dismissed. I order that the plaintiff’s application for an order to show cause dated 13 July 2012 be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs.

AT 10.31 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2012/266.html

KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: THERE IS BELIEF

Ferdinands v Minister for Defence is not about lack of discipline in the office of a Minister of the Crown, or jurisdictional error of the Minister of Defence, or freedom of information or the powers of ministerial direction it is about the intricate relationships of the character of men involved in the dispute and defence of the realm in the hands of the men and soldiers of the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Infantry; about men who can see treason and evil in all its forms and stamp it out, thus if there is no trust between the army and the parliament and its agents of the crown then there can be no crown.

The only thing that exists in law is reason and logic. There is no such thing as judicial reasoning or religious reasoning. One plus one is two. That is not owned by anyone. There is no judicial mathematics or religious mathematic all that exists is one plus one is two. If someone came along and said one plus one is three and this is judicial reasoning then that would be not just incorrect and wrong but illogical and chaotic. If someone came along and said one plus one is three and this is religious reasoning then that would be not just incorrect and wrong but illogical and chaotic.

This is the biggest fraud in Australian legal history. It involves many dubious legal practitioners, inefficient and ineffective Ministers of the Crown, recklessly indifferent Chiefs of Army and unconvincing superior military officers from the Department of Defence.

The courts have been hoodwinked. Cheating in the military justice system is rife. The plaintiff has suffered detriment, harm and damage and the Minister has the power to expose the truth and powers enabling him clear up all these matters without judicial intervention but yet after all his fraud he still comes to court. Why? The evidence is he controls the courts and the court outcomes. Anyone who attacks the Minister or the Department in court will lose because the courts are controlled by the Minister. The Minister is close with the courts and the courts are close with the federal government. The Minister has been untruthful about the Board of Inquiry process. The Minister has created a process that is essentially a cover up process ad seeks to shield the image and reputation of the Army first against all individuals and all claims thus those who bring their own brand of racism, fraud, dishonesty and corruption are out disciplined but their victims are isolated, ostracized, humiliated and forced out of the department by a series of false and misleading evidence. The cover up goes on day after day, week after week, year after year…and the cover up is easily dealt with because the victim’s claims are readily dismissed and the response by the department is that the investigators and legal practitioners have done a full investigation and there is no evidence. This is the big fat lie, this is the ultimate hoodwinking of the justice system this is duping the courts and the superior appellate courts.

In laymen’s terms this means that racism and fraud are quickly swept under the carpet and that network which exists continues to operate with impunity. This is systematic abuse of the legal process….the issuing of false summons, the fabrication of evidence, the convening of court rooms in fraud. TODAY, the High Court of Australia has convened n fraud because the Crown and the Minister know full well I am soldier first and was at my post doing my duty and no person ever invited me to a Friday night video party and drinking session and I did not attend any Friday night video party and drinking session ad I did not speak to any members of RAAOC or with the alleged victim nor did I see or touch the alleged victim thus fraud means a scheme so sophisticated that no one would suspect a plan and scam was being executed. The undetectable cover up continues because of traitors in the Army with weak courts and even weaker judicial officers.

The question, Is there diversity in appeals? Is answered by

Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955

Division 2—Determination of appeals

23 Quashing of conviction etc.

(1) Subject to subsection (5), where in an appeal it appears to the Tribunal:

(a) that the conviction or the prescribed acquittal is unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence;

(b) that, as a result of a wrong decision on a question of law, or of mixed law and fact, the conviction or the prescribed acquittal was wrong in law and that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred;

(c) that there was a material irregularity in the course of the proceedings before the court martial or the Defence Force magistrate and that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred; or

(d) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the conviction or the prescribed acquittal is unsafe or unsatisfactory; it shall allow the appeal and quash the conviction or the prescribed acquittal.

41 Person deemed to have been acquitted

For the purposes of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982: (a) where the Tribunal quashes a conviction of a service offence and does not order a new trial of the person for the offence, the person shall be deemed to have been acquitted of the offence; and (b) where the Tribunal quashes a prescribed acquittal of a person of a service offence and does not give a direction with respect to the person under subsection 23(4) or order a new trial of the person for the offence, the person shall be deemed to have been acquitted of the offence without qualification.

42 Defence of appeals

The Chief of the Defence Force or a service chief shall arrange the undertaking of the defence of an appeal under this Act.

Law is not and never has been a profession. It is a hobby and a past time that is carried out across many societies, communities, villages and countries of the world by elders and heads of the courts who are appointed either by the people or the parliament. No matter how many books are written on the subject, or how many judgments are delivered in the courts, or how many persons talk and practice law it is still an unprofessional body forever seeking and striking for greatness as a profession such as carpentry, butchering, engineering or mathematics. Those true professions rely only on facts whereas law has evolved to include many diverse opinions, circumstances, inferences and ideas arriving at entirely wrong or false conclusions.

In other words, law is a whole lot old mesh-mash and these mesh-mashed opinions sway over time and rule of a community or country and are created by opinionated persons who seek to create the future by reliving or fabricating the past.

Deceit is a global practice.

Deceit has spread rapidly throughout the world. In the new age of internet, technology and social media a rumour and a lie spread like wild fires across a dry barren bush. The expectations of any person in court are to get a balanced and fair hearing and the strictest rules of the court applied with high moral standards. But deceit seeks to grab power and money. Deceit will grab all the power and all the money using all the tools available to it and will do so illegally, unlawfully and wrongfully.

Deceit has no acceptance in a Christian culture, or a Democratic country or an impartial balanced court or tribunal.

Thus, disclosure breaks deceit. Disclosure is the individual’s right to seek out and access all materials and information, to gather and collate them, and then make sense and analyse them to the true meaning of the documents and the information presented. The ultimate purpose of disclosure is to set the face of the public record straight and where any man has been wrongly accused or victim of a smear campaign then he can produce documents to clear his name and remove any stain of a conviction against his name; a conviction obtained by fraud, sham or deceit.

KINGSLEY FERDINANDS PREDICTED THE NIGGER NATION - THE FALL OF THE U.S. EMPIRE

Friday, October 12, 2012

KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: THE HATRED FOR BLACKS IN AUSTRALIA

KINGSLY FERDINANDS: THE HATRED FOR BLACKS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE REGISTRY No. A22 of 2012

BETWEEN: TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS

Plaintiff

and

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE

Defendant

SUMMONS

To: The Defendant: Minister for Defence, Hon. Stephen Smith MP

c/o Australian Government Solicitor’s Office, Grenfell Street, Adelaide S.A. 5000.

YOU ARE SUMMONED to attend before a Justice at____________________

[address of Court] on _________[date] at __________[time] on the hearing of an

application by Trevor Kingsley Ferdinands for [set out the orders being sought].

1. An order to show cause and the relief claimed is that the Minister for Defence, Hon. Stephen Smith present the Captain Callaghan RAN Board of Inquiry report and findings in its full and entirely for inspection, consideration and assessment based on a failure to comply with a request on 11th May 2012 and this failure is a jurisdictional error of the Minister based upon denial of natural justice.

2. The second relief sought is that this is a test case against s.75 (v) of the Constitution as to the duties and responsibilities of all Ministers of the Crown to lawfully and properly attend to the administration of their Commonwealth portfolios and offices. This means that Ministers of the Crown must be responsible and not force plaintiffs to activate s.75 (v) of the Constitution based on the failure of a Minister to action a correspondence.

3. An order that the question of law be referred to the Full Court for determination of the issues raised in this application. The Question of Law is lawfully and properly answered by this Honourable Court to give guidance to all soldiers in the Australian Army and the Australian Army Reserve, namely:

1. Can the Chief of Army appoint a legal defense counsel to a soldier in the Australian Army who has been accused and charged with service offences if that soldier has refused any Australian Army legal assistance and wishes to appoint his own legal advisors and team to defend charges against him?

4. Finally, pursuant to section 75 (v) of the Constitution the Minister for Defence is an officer of the Commonwealth, and for the Minister of the Crown to ignore a request or decline to perform an overt statutory duty in the face of the Judiciary to amend the face of the public with all enabling is an injustice; thus, a denial of natural justice has occurred. The Minister for Defence had a duty to prevent a denial of natural justice and a responsibility to perform these administrative acts in a quasi-judicial function as Minister for Defence within jurisdiction as a Minister of the Crown and declined to do produce the necessary materials evidence, namely:

(a) That this Honourable Court issues constitutional writs of certiorari and mandamus in respect of the Minister’s decision not to comply with the requests of 11 May 2012 in which he made decision to refuse permission to release the Board of Inquiry report conducted by Captain Callaghan RAN that was a denial of natural justice.

5. Any such orders or directions as the Court sees fit.

Filed: Friday, 13th day of July 2012.

....................................

Registrar

This summons was filed by TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS.

KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: THE HATRED FOR THE TRUTH & JUSTICE

KINGSLEY FERDINANDS: THE HATRED FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE REGISTRY No. of 2012

BETWEEN: TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS

Plaintiff

and

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE

Defendant

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

To: The Defendant, MINISTER FOR DEFENCE

Hon. Stephen Smith MP, Australian Government Solicitor's office, Grenfell Street, ADELAIDE S.A. 5000.

TAKE NOTICE that this application has been made by the plaintiff for the relief that is set out below on the grounds that are set out below.

IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding you must file a notice of appearance in the office of the Registry named above.

IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT to any order that the Court may make, save as to costs, you may file a submitting appearance in the office of the Registry named above.

THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEARANCE is as follows:

(a) where you are served with the application within Australia – 14 days from the date of service;

(b) in any other case – 42 days from the date of service.

THE RELIEF CLAIMED is:

THE GROUNDS OF WHICH THE RELIEF IS CLAIMED are:

Under High Court Rule 25.03.2 the following standards are addressed:

(a) stating why the matter should not be remitted to another court or, if the plaintiff submits that it should be remitted, identifying the Court to which it should be remitted:

The Minister has made a jurisdictional error of denial of natural justice which requires constitutional writs of certiorari and mandamus to be executed. Section 75 of the Constitution 1901 allows for intervention of the High Court judges where there has been a jurisdictional error, on the face of the public record, that hassled to a denial of natural justice.

(b) stating what further steps, if any, should be taken in the Court, whether by way of reference of a question of law to a Full Court or otherwise;

2. Question of Law arises is, Can the Chief of Army appoint a legal defense counsel to a soldier in the Australian Army who has been accused and charged with service offences if that soldier has refused any Australian Army legal assistance and wishes to appoint his own legal advisors and team to defend charges against him or her?

It is primary fact evidence that the plaintiff bitterly opposed and refused Chief of Army’s offer of defence counsel. The plantiff was suspicious and did fear the defence counsel appointed by Chief of Army (Wing Commander david McLeod) would not aggressively attack the prosecution case and expose the weaknesses and flaws in the prosecution case. In the end the defence counsel’s cross examination of all Crown witnesses was no more than a fire side chat (without the glass of red wine).

The question no doubt is complex but the correct answer is No. The main reason being Chief of Army exposes himself to allegations of denial of natural justice or legal practitioner misconduct, trumped-up charges and serious miscarriages of justice. .

The High Court of Australia is to issue constitutional writs of certiorari and mandamus against the Minister for Defence for jurisdictional error that has led to a denial of natural justice.

(d) setting out the precise terms of the orders which the plaintiff submits should be made on the hearing of the summons.

This Hounourable Court finds the Minister for Defence in jurisdictional error that being a denial of natural justice and issues writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash the decision of the Minister for Defence to refuse permission to release the Captain Callaghan RAN Board of Inquiry and demands that the Minister perform a specific function and duty and release in full the Captain Callaghan RAN Board of Inquiry.

This application shall be heard at the time and place stated [if a summons is to be served with the application] in the summons served with this application [if no summons is to be served with the application] in a summons to be served at a later time.

This application was filed by the plaintiff.

Dated: Friday, 13th day of July 2012.

(signed)........................................................................

TREVOR KINGSLEY FERDINANDS

The plaintiff’s address is 592 Brighton Road, BRIGHTON S.A. 5048.

The plaintiff's address for service is 592 Brighton Road, BRIGHTON S.A. 5048.

This application shall be heard at the time and place stated [if a summons is to be served with the application] in the summons served with this application / [if no summons is to be served with the application] in a summons to be served at a later time.