Judge Sandra Taglieri, one of Tasmania’s finest sitting on the Circus Court, has come in for a blitzkrieg from others higher up the food chain.

In Anderson v Morgan Crest Pty Ltd t/a Ray White Benalla, Her Honour Justice Helen Rofe of the Federal Court accused Judge Taglieri of falling foul of the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Lena Anderson is described as an older self-represented litigant with a chronic health problem. She rented a property from David Sharpe for $330 a week in regional Victoria’s sleepy Benalla.

Problems soon arose, with claims that there was a failure to do repairs to the property; a blocked toilet; mounting rent arrears – ultimately in excess of $20,000; and numerous notices to vacate – which were challenged in VCAT, the Supreme Court, and Court of Appeal.

Even when Ray White issued work orders for the property, Ms Anderson refused to allow access until her appeal on one of the eviction notices was heard by Vic Supremes.

Anderson: attending to aged dogs locked in the laundryRay White says the saga involved more than 20 VCAT hearings, two Supreme Court appeals, and countless disputes over rent arrears, property access, and maintenance issues. Sharpe is well underwater financially and says he will never rent another property again.

It’s been quite a drama – as Justice Rofe observed: “much ink has already been spilled …”

Sharpe was being treated for cancer and caring for a disabled daughter. In July last year, the Court of Appeal ordered that Anderson leave the property and awarded the landlord legal costs of between $80,000 -$100,000.

Ms Anderson swung her attention onto Ray White and is chasing compensation of $43,426 for alleged “unconscionable conduct” under the Australian Consumer Law.

A fortnight before the trial the local coppers turned up and Lena hurriedly departed, leaving behind her papers and computer.

She found temporary share digs for herself and two elderly dogs.

In view of the hiatus in her domestic arrangements, Lena sought a month long adjournment from trial judge Sanda Taglieri – which was refused on the ground there was not a satisfactory explanation why the trial could not proceed and “no probative medical evidence” – despite the fact there was a rheumatologist’s diagnosis of fibromyalgia.

Before reasons on the adjournment application were given Lena had left the court to attend to her dogs who had been locked in the laundry. She wanted to get back to clean up any mess before the other tenant got home.

Taglieri was unimpressed: “I’m not convinced that her reasons were proper reasons.”

Rofe J rode to the rescue and sent it back to start again with a different judge, saying:

“In exercising her discretion, I consider that the primary judge overlooked an important discretionary factor: the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. Considerations of court efficiency and competing court resources are important considerations in the modern court environment. However, they must be part of the consideration, not the totality. As observed by French CJ in Aon, another important consideration to be taken into account is the need to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.”

Adding to the denial of procedural fairness was that no written copy of Taglieri’s reasons was provided to the parties – so the applicant had no clue as to what aspects of the decision were prejudicial to her.

Anderson v Morgan Crest Pty Ltd t/a Ray White Benalla

≈   ≈   ≈

Sandra Taglierei is a former president of the Van Diemen’s Land Bar n’ Grill, a “demon” mountain bike rider, and the guardian of court support dog Zoey – described by Two Wigs Willy as “the first judicial appointment of a four-legged variety”.

Taglieri was appointed to the court by Madam Cruella Cash in May 2021.

Gay or not gay

In another unfortunately appeal decision, Justice Hugh O’Bryan of the Federales took the birch to Sandra and her handling of an immigration case.

Minister for Exclusions and Dancing at Ethnic Festivals v CFV17

The protection visa applicant was a Malaysian who was being chased by his government back home because he was campaigning for electoral reform.

This, apparently, is regarded as a national threat to the Malaysian government, and poor CFV17 would be imprisoned and fined for his reformist troubles.

Later still he claimed to be homosexual, but he didn’t want his daughter to know. He simply could not go back to Malaysia.

The Minister’s hand-puppet said NO to the protection visa and so did the AAT, which found he concocted things.

Before the tribunal there was also the issue of CFV’s bankruptcy, which he claimed was due to someone stealing his identity when he lost his ID card. He was also vague about his involvement in protests against the Malaysian government.

HH Sandra Taglieri found that the tribunal’s findings about the claimed homosexuality were legally unreasonable.

“… having been married and having had a child is not inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence of the marriage being arranged and that he had been hiding his homosexuality. In short, there may be various ways in which a person publicly portrays themselves for the purpose of hiding homosexuality. I consider the tribunal finding and reasoning to be unreasonable and illogical.”

O’Bryan J thought that Sandra was being unreasonable and illogical:

“I respectfully disagree with the primary judge’s conclusion. The decision of the tribunal does not display legal unreasonableness or other jurisdictional error and the primary judge was in error to find that it does.”

He found the tribunal was right to think that the respondent was concocting things, because: the claim about his homosexuality was late to the party; he was capable of making the claim earlier; and his evidence about his sexual orientation was wobbly.

Consequently, there was a rational basis for the tribunal’s adverse credibility finding. Judge Sandra’s suggestion that it was “plausible” that CFV17 was referring to his claim to be homosexual when he said at the commencement of the hearing that he wanted to provide more information was unsupportable.

“The primary judge’s criticisms are not justified and unsound as a matter of principle. The tribunal was entitled to take into account the time at which and circumstance in which the claim was raised, and whether there was an adequate explanation for the delay in making the claim.”

No ticket of leave for CFV17, but there may not be an order for the costs of the appeal because was “unrepresented” and acted reasonably in proceeding on the basis that Sandra was correct.