Ryan v Fraser Coast Regional Council
[2025] QCA 108
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Ryan v Fraser Coast Regional Council[2025] QCA 108
- Add to List
Ryan v Fraser Coast Regional Council[2025] QCA 108
Ryan v Fraser Coast Regional Council[2025] QCA 108
[2025] QCA 108
COURT OF APPEAL
MULLINS P
Appeal No 2162 of 2025
DC No 10 of 2025
GREGORY JOHN RYANApplicant
v
FRASER COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent
BRISBANE
THURSDAY, 19 JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant applies for leave to appeal from the District Court Judge’s order, made on 21 February 2025, refusing the applicant leave to appeal from the Magistrate’s refusal on 3 October 2024 to set aside the default judgment for outstanding rates, obtained by the respondent on 3 July 2024 and amended on 4 July 2024. The application was listed for hearing today for the applicant to show cause why the application should not be struck out as an abuse of process. The application was not accompanied by an affidavit that set out the reasons for justifying the leave. The applicant did provide, however, to the registry a document that is entitled Notice of Appeal and sets out his grounds for appeal that is based on what the District Court Judge described, in paragraph 7 of his judgment, as “sovereign citizen pseudo-law.”
APPLICANT: Here we go.
THE PRESIDENT: To give an example, the grounds start off with, “I, as holder of the office of beneficiary, waive all benefits that would otherwise accrue to my estate in relation to this matter.” It deals with beliefs that the applicant holds that the State Government, being a privately owned corporation, created the full caps name, referring to the surname by which the court’s file has been created, reflecting the name of the applicant before the District Court and also the Magistrates Court. And the ground goes on to say that, “I did not write that name on my contracts, the Government changed it to that name. I wish for it to be changed back to Gregory-John-Beneficiary.” The notice of appeal goes on to refer to a US Supreme Court ruling about no corporate jurisdiction over natural land and makes criticisms of the District Court Judge’s opinion that the applicant is a sovereign citizen.
The ground that the applicant pointed out that he pursues as a substantive ground is based on his belief that he is a beneficiary and has a trustee, and that the trustee was never served, I quote, “This ground. Proper due process has not occurred, as only the beneficiary who carries no liability was given documents as opposed to the (a) lawful trustee or administrator whose fiduciary role is to deal with financial matters regarding the estate. How can, say, the trustee defend himself – itself if that party hasn’t been served???” I asked the applicant whether he was bankrupt, and he confirmed that he was not bankrupt. That is the only circumstance known to law where a natural person has a trustee who acts for them in the financial matters where they are not otherwise incapacitated from acting.
The application for leave to appeal, on its face, is so deficient that it constitutes an abuse of process. It fails to disclose the grounds for the application and seeks relief that is improper and offensive. I pointed this out to the applicant during the hearing to give him an opportunity to address the matter. It was not addressed in a satisfactory way. Instead, I was the recipient of a tirade about the court having unclean hands and being “a money-making racket” and a question being asked about whether the court was creating bonds and holding the applicant as security for the bonds.
I made the email that the applicant sent through on the 17th of June 2025 at 3.22 pm exhibit 1. I have also been provided with the email that the applicant sent through to the court on the 18th of June 2025 at 2.07 pm. That will be exhibit 2.
EXHIBIT #2 ADMITTED AND MARKED
APPLICANT: I don’t mean to be rude. I haven’t delivered all my evidence yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do not interrupt me. I am giving my reasons. To illustrate why the relief that is sought in the application is improper and offensive, I will refer to paragraphs 2 to 4 and 6 to 9 of the application. Paragraphs 1 to 5 simply seek leave to appeal, or that all prior decisions, rulings by Magistrates and District Courts be nullified, revoked. Those two paragraphs lack detail as to the reasons for why that relief is sought, in that those reasons are not provided in the rest of the application, but paragraphs 1 and 5, by themselves, are not objectionable.
Paragraph 2 states, “To see full accounting records of the estate (at least over the past five years) especially in relation to bonds created by the courts thus far over this time,”. Paragraph 3 then states, “To see the bonds created by the courts thus far in relation to this matter,”. Paragraph 4 is directed at the respondent and states, “The Council is to remove their claim against myself, holding office of beneficiary and to instead serve a/the lawful trustee.” Paragraph 6 pursues this dichotomy between beneficiary and trustee and states, “I be lawfully appointed as trustee with a lawful title rather than an unlawful legal title, being Mister, so I can lawfully deal with matters involving the estate which relates to me and receive salary for doing so (salary to be advised) and/or the name on the deed be changed to Gregory-john holding office as beneficiary.”
Paragraph 7 seeks that the solicitor who appeared in the courts below for the respondent, “Be arrested for perjury, extortion, fraud and possibly treason,” and paragraph 8 seeks relief against the District Court Judge, that his Honour, “Be arrested for fraud, coercion and treason and breaches of various other Acts relating to impartiality (in his case, lack of) and failure of fiduciary duty,”. Paragraph 9 seeks an award of costs to the applicant of $2.3 million or part thereof.
Where the judgment that was obtained by the respondent in the Magistrates Court was for unpaid rates and was less than the minimum amount of a minor civil debt claim, namely $25,000, it is apparent that the applicant is not using the processes of the court appropriately to seek leave to appeal from the District Court Judge’s refusal of leave to appeal from the Magistrate’s decision given on 3 October 2024. In those circumstances, the appropriate response by this court to the applicant’s abuse of process is to strike out the application. The order is application for leave to appeal, filed on 30 May 2025, is struck out as an abuse of process.
APPLICANT: I didn’t get to present all my evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. The ‑ ‑ ‑
APPLICANT: That is ‑ ‑ ‑
THE PRESIDENT: ‑ ‑ ‑ court is ‑ ‑ ‑
APPLICANT: That is tampering ‑ ‑ ‑
THE PRESIDENT: ‑ ‑ ‑ adjourning.
APPLICANT: ‑ ‑ ‑ with evidence. You have tampered with my evidence. I have not been able to speak. I must be able to speak and produce all my evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr – sorry ‑ ‑ ‑
APPLICANT: I’m not Mister. Stop calling me ‑ ‑ ‑
THE PRESIDENT: Applicant ‑ ‑ ‑
APPLICANT: ‑ ‑ ‑ Mister. I rebut that title.
THE PRESIDENT: Applicant ‑ ‑ ‑
APPLICANT: How dare you.
THE PRESIDENT: ‑ ‑ ‑ I gave you an opportunity ‑ ‑ ‑
APPLICANT: And you didn’t let me finish. You did not give me full opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: I will ask my Associate to terminate the link. Thank you. Adjourn the court.