{return to home page}

A warning to anyone who owns land in NSW but is not Australian by birth.

How Australian government and judicial system offers no protection in law when migrants are robbed and asset-stripped. Government refuses to accept any responsibility when its courts corrupt their very own local laws, violate the Australian Constitution and the International Covenants and discriminate on grounds of nationality.

The issue was a simple one that could have been simply resolved ..if equality existed before the law in NSW without favour or distinction but ...

Someone with connections built a massive concrete construction illegally on someone else's land.

And the outcome of the court case was

The property owners (a migrant family) who suffered the trespass were treated as the offenders by the courts, asset stripped and left penniless.

The result ? Their lives were shattered and the family was destroyed by the court case.

How could this happen?

Simple! The person who breached the law is an Australian citizen and the victims, the former property owners, are German migrants.

The Australian Government violated the international covenants by allowing the Local Government and the courts to breach common law and several statutory laws, when they applied the law selectively to discriminate against the German migrants. They:

  • Failed to protect property title.
  • Took away property and all rights without offering any compensation to the owners of the land.
  • Decided that a proposal was an agreement although such an "agreement" was in breach of statutory law and by that the court implied that contracts have the power to set aside statutory law.
  • In 3 instances - implied meanings of agreements which contradicted the context of such agreements and benefited the party who breached the law.
  • Took away the right for an effective remedy.
  • Refused protection that should have been provided by the law.
  • Refused to have the matter dealt with in the right court, the Land & Environment court.
  • Made the victims into the offenders and treated the party who broke the law as the victims.
  • Accepted and protected a person who committed perjury.
  • Accepted racial insults against the German migrants without any comments.
  • Subjected the victims to arbitrary unlawful interference with their privacy, their family and home, and to unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation.
  • Threatened the victims with imprisonment to enforce compliance with an alleged and disputed agreement.
  • Denied their three children their right of special protection to enable them to grow up in conditions of freedom and dignity to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner. Instead, for more than 8 years, the children were subjected to an environment of mental abuse and racial discrimination by the Australian Government.
  • Treated the German migrants with contempt because they had asked the court why the law did not apply for everyone.


1. A right of way through a property owned by German migrants was defined in the property deed by means of a survey plan and exact detailed measurements.

2. One day, the user of the right of way trespassed onto the land at 5.30 in the morning by pouring concrete mix on the way without the property owners' consent.

3. A representative of the Local Council watched the action and gave the go-ahead of a huge reinforced concrete construction which:

was in a environmentally protected area,
was a massive structure that had the effect of acting as water dam so causing flooding of the property,
included a reinforced concrete water spillway encroaching more than 7 m onto the owners' land beyond the boundary of the easement .

3. The work was carried out - with a Local Council representative attending the construction work -

in the absence of any Development or Building Application,
without surveys, plans or any other form of written documentation,
against the will of the protesting property owners.

In extensive negotiations the property owners tried to resolve the matter with the trespassing party and the local council. Because the work was on their land in an environmentally protected area they were in NSW law liable for it. When the work continued and the council refused to answer the questions regarding the absence of any Building or Development Applications (BA & DA) the property owners had no other option than to instruct a solicitor to take action to have the illegal work stopped and removed from their land.

The solicitor filed the claim in the wrong court, the Equity Division of the Supreme Court, which has no jurisdiction in planning laws, environmental laws or the Local Government Act. Because of that the council was discharged from the proceeding and the property owner had to pay the costs for this exercise.

4. The solicitor compromised the proceedings against the trespasser when he advised the property owners to agree to a settlement by which the encroachment would be removed from their land. The solicitor advised that they should pay their own cost and he would recover these cost and damages by the action against the council.

5. The trespasser refused to remove the structure as agreed and when the property owners removed it they were taken back to the Supreme Court by the trespassing party for breach of contract. In court the trespasser insisted that the property owners had agreed to have the illegal structure on their land.

6. The special investigation department from the Local Government visited the site but was unable to answer the question whether BA & DA approval were necessary to carry out a waterway/dam construction in an environmentally protected waterway on someone else's land.

7. The property owners dismissed their solicitor and represented themselves in the direction hearing before the court. They asked for leave to file proceedings in the correct court, the Land & Environment Court, because Council had refused to deal with the matter and the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to order the reinstatement of an illegally built structure onto someone else's land which was under environmental protection.

8. The Supreme Court of NSW rejected having the matter dealt with in the right court and ordered a hearing of the matter for the following week.

The matter was continuously before the court because the judge failed to make orders. After one year the judge handed the matter over to another judge.

9. The property owners meanwhile had engaged another solicitor who advised that engineers should try to find a solution for the construction issue. Engineers from both sides met and they reported some ideas as a proposal in "Minutes of Meeting". Drawings or plans were not in existence at that time and it turned out that the proposed construction would not work because the engineers had failed to investigate the site details.

The property owners filed their appeal against the first judgment. Meanwhile a further hearing took place on the court below with another judge who was to determine the fate of the structure. The judge was furious, did not want to make the order and wanted the matter to be settled. The Supreme Court of NSW has no jurisdiction over these statutory laws and therefore could not make an order that the work in the proposal had to be carried out.

10. The property owner's solicitor and the engineer now insisted that the proposal could probably work with some amendments. The engineers of both parties attended a hearing and negotiations took place whether the construction of the causeway could be contained within the easement. After enormous pressure from their legal representatives the property owners agreed that the proposal could be explored.

This was a proposal that was subject to council approval. There were no plans or specifications in existence. To gain approval from the proper authorities was highly unlikely because the work was to be carried out in a waterway protected by legislation.

11. New plans and specifications were drafted and then signed by an engineer who had no authority to sign any documents on behalf of the property owners. These plans showed an encroachment of more than 9 meters. The property owners requested that the plans to be amended.

12. The matter went back to court and the court found that the proposal was an agreement and that the proposal had to be built regardless of the fact that the encroachment issue of the previous judgment was to be challenged in the Court of Appeal.

13. The trespasser and the council refused to prepare the required development application for the huge development in a protected waterway. The property owners challenged the matter in the Land & Environment Court. The trespasser admitted that the previous structure would have needed a Building Application and the Court decided that a Development Application was necessary. The judgment says both, the council and the trespasser deny that they have any intention to widen the 6m wide road.

14. The court signed the Building and the Development Application and by that gave 500 (five hundred) square metres of the owner's land to the trespasser for the use of a road. The road width was 40 (forty) metres.

15. In the meantime the Court of Appeal criticized the previous judge and found that the neighbour contravened the previous agreement when he exceeded the width of the easement (6 m)

16. Despite this court ruling the local council approved and so legalised the construction of a 40 m wide road.

17. When the property owners requested the Supreme Court of NSW to determine whether a judgment from the Appeal court would supersede a judgment of the Supreme Court the judge went wild. The property owners represented the case themselves and when one of them collapsed in Court the judge refused medical attention.

18. The trespasser - a mechanical engineer - announced himself to be the superintendent of the environmental and construction work and started to build anyway and so butchered the environment.

19. On a Friday 9:30 p.m. the property owners were served with a court order which threatened them with imprisonment and property sequestration should they not comply with that order. The property owners found out that there had been a hearing in the Supreme Court of NSW without them ever being informed. The trespasser successfully claimed in court that the property owners had agreed that they would prepare for him a turning circle (approx. 200 square metre) for large trucks and construction vehicles on another part of their land. The court made an order, which forced the owners to prepare such turning circle and to remove part of their own road including their road embankments and plants outside of the easement on their land far away from the construction site.

20. The property owners received a letter saying that the work had been finished and they thus reinstated their road and embankment. But then council did not agree that the work had been done to council satisfaction and requested that environmental repair work also be carried out.

21. The trespasser asked the Court that the property owners be imprisoned until he had completed his work, their property sequestrated and an order made that they reinstate the 200 square metre turning circle for large trucks and construction vehicles on their land. The court ordered that the property owners had to reinstate the turning circle.

22. The property owners filed damage proceedings against 2 solicitors, the trespasser, and the engineer who had signed documents without their authorisation and against the council for damages and compensation.

23. The trespasser agreed that both parties would have their costs assessed but then claimed that by agreeing to have costs assessed it implies that the costs have to be paid forthwith. The Court agreed.

24. When evidence was presented that the trespasser had committed perjury the court took no action, and indeed would not even take any notice of the fact.

25. The property owners lost their business and had to sell their only asset left, their home devalued in a rapid sale because the neighbour trespasser threatened them by starting bankruptcy proceedings.

26. The German migrants have lost everything, their family broke apart and they have no belief left in a fair and democratic Australia. They experienced the reality of a country where human rights are violated and no rule of law exists.

View a tabulated listing of the violations of local statute law and international covenants this case has involved.

ONE VOICE - ONE PEOPLE is an independent, non-party-political, non-profit organisation committed to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms and to contribute to the promotion and advancement of democratic societies, institutions and processes

{to cases of concern}

To OVOP cases

(C) One Voice One People. Last updated: March 2000