Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money.

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:15am:




mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed...

are you readin that Ozzie?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2020 at 11:17am:


More lies.  Or, perhaps you actually did mean perhaps and are just musing out loud for the Hell of it.  I pestered no-one to pursue anything.

We have received numerous telephone calls and emails from various member of our plaintiffs’ group regarding the decision of the Court on 1 May 2020 in which the Court gave judgment in favour of the defendant State in relation to the claims for equitable relief and breach of contract, and in which the Court granted leave for the plaintiffs to replead and thereby clarify the claim in those paragraphs relating to the Australian Consumer Law issues

You will recall that we said at the outset that this claim was somewhat novel, albeit the principles of law are relatively established ( save that the law relating to Estoppel/ equitable relief is not totally settled), and that it was likely that we would suffer a setback or two in the Queensland Supreme Court.

Our preliminary reading of the judgment made by his Honour Justice Bradley on 1 May 2020 is that it lengthy and detailed but on my reading of the judgment, it appears to be replete with contradictions, errors and misstatement of law, and accordingly it should be appealed.

It is my experience that the views expressed by one judge can often differ from the views and opinions of the judges in a Court of Appeal. If a Court of Appeal considers the judgment to be in error and accordingly is unsafe and/or wrong, it can set the judgment aside.

For the above reasons, we are examining the judgment in detail with view to filing a Notice of Appeal against that part of the judgment concerning the equitable relief and contract issues.

Equitable relief is the Estoppel issue, and is concerned with fairness and justice, as distinct from “black letter law” ( such as is the case with contract).

It is one thing to find fault and errors in a judgment. It is quite another thing to draft a Notice of Appeal, which must be confined to errors of law, and must be accurately pleaded and argued.

For the above reason we will not be in a position to provide you with a further, detailed analysis and grounds for appeal at this time, however, we have 28 days from the date of the judgment within which to file an serve any notice of appeal.

We will update you all through the website with developments and when the issues concerning the proposed appeal become more apparent.

Meantime: "Nil bastardum carborundum ! “


Thanks and kind regards,

I reckon you could figure that one out for yourself John.

as for that NO WIN NO PAY  advertising its as crooked as it sounds.. and should not be allowed..

if you dont WIN  then you

LOSE.. and the costs go against you....so YES YOU BLOODY DO PAY..