Jack Russell. Photo by Ash Long.

A claim made by Yea citizen Jack Russell against Murrindindi Shire Council and its CEO Craig Lloyd has been struck out by Supreme Court Associate Justice Melissa Lee Daly.
Justice Daly determined last Wednesday (Sept. 4) that Mr Russell’s statement of claim, in a writ filed on January 10, be struck out.
Counsel, Mr Ian Munt of Maddocks, for the Council, and Mr Lloyd, successfully applied for an order that Mr Russell pay costs of and incidental to his summons dated March 27.
However, Associate Justice Daly gave leave to Mr Russell to lodge an amended claim by November 4.
The amended statement is set out the facts which Mr Russell says give rise to a duty care on the part of the Council and Mr Lloyd to avoid causing him mental harm.
MrRussell has been offered leave to submit an amended statement of claim whre he alleged the Council and Mr Lloyd intended to cause him mental harm, and/or had breached any duty to avoid causing him mental harm.
He has been invited to identify a recognised psychological or psychiatric injury suffered by him.
Mr Russell has been invited to say how the Council and Mr Lloyd caused that psychological or psychiatric condition.
If Mr Russell does not lodge the amended statement of claim by November 4, the proceeding is to be dismissed.
If Mr Russell intends to pursue a claim in negligence and/or breach of statuory duty, the mended statement of claim must be accompanied by a significant injury certificate.
Applications by the Council’s lawyers filed on March 27, and Mr Russell’s claim in his summons of June 14, are adjourned to a date to be fixed not before November 11.

Judge looks at ‘history of disputation, litigation’ with Shire

Associate Justice Melissa Daly said there was a history of disputation and litigation between Jack Russell, Murrindindi Shire Council and its CEO Craig Lloyd.
“This proceeding concerns the Council’s decision to restrict [Mr Russell’s] hours of access to the Yea Library,” the Judge said.
“The restriction was imposed by the Council for the purposes of protecting its staff, following an incident on April 13, 2016, where [Mr Russell] allegedly assaulted Ms Tull, a member of Council staff employed at the Yea Library.
“As a result of this alleged incident, the Council decided to prohibit [Mr Russell] for a period of 12 months.
“The Council then reviewed and renewed the prohibition in April 2017 and April 2018.
“On October 24, 2018, the CEO invited [Mr Russell] to make submissions as to whether the prohibition oght to be varied, and [Mr Russell] did so.
“On November 9, 2018, the CEO notified [Mr Russell] that the Council had determined to vary the prohibition.
“On January 10, 2019, [Mr Russell] commenced this proceeding, alleging that the [Council and Mr Lloyd] had caused him mental harm resulting from the decision to restrict his access to the Yea Library … [Mr Russell] prepared the statement of claim without the benefit of legal assistance.”
Associate Justice Daly referred to the County Court appeal in which Justice Mullaly set aside Mr Russell’s conviction regarding the Yea Library assault allegation, instead fining him in two counts.
In a statement of claim, Mr Russell stated that he had been harmed because he suffered, including fear of confrontation with Ms Tull at the Yea Library.
Mr Russell sought a waiver of the requirement to serve a certificate of assessment under ther Wrongs Act
Associate Justice Daly said the Council and Mr Lloyd, in their March 27 defence, denied or did not admit the allegations.
The Council said Ms Tull had obtained an interim intervention order against [Mr Russell],. Mr Russell had been found guilty of trespass and common assault.
The Council said it had a duty of care to Ms Tull in her capacity as an employee.
Associate Justice Daly struck out Mr Russell’s statement of claim. “However, at this stage, I do not propose to order summary judgement in favour of the defendants.
“Rather, the plaintiff should have the opportunity to re-plead his claim, preferably with legal assistance.
“Further, I will direct that if he wishes to pursue a claim for personal injuiry arising out of the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty of the defendants, he must serve a significant injury certificate within a certain period of time.”
The Council’s Counsel; submitted that it would be a waste of the Court’s resources for the proceeding to continue.
Associate Justice Daly said Mr Russell had filed numerous affidavits and submissions in opposition to the Council’s application, “some of which were repetitive and almost unintelligible”.
Psychiatric reports by Dr Nicholas Ingram and Dr David Weissman. were sent to the Court.