20190220-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of The Board

Page 1
1
2
3 Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of the Board 20-2-2019
4 501 Bourke St, Melbourne VIC 3000
5
6 20190220-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of the Board
7 reference number is 65083073
8 Madam,
9 I did state in my 13-2-2019 correspondence to you:
10 QUOTE
11 I urge you to take personal care about the matters as failing to do so will not likely resolve anything and
12 again may just make it worse for RACV in regard of Public Relations.
13 END QUOTE
14
15 It appears however that you have with the RACV various levels and so to say your foot soldiers
16 on level 1 failed disastrously in making a proper assessment of my claim.
17 Worse IAG so to say seems to do the bidding for the RACV and so the 50 years plus
18 membership doesn’t mean any reasonable and appropriate consideration at all.
19 My and my wife’s insurance policy is with RACV and it is immaterial for this if the RACV is
20 backed by whatever insurance company provided it doesn’t affect adverse to our policy rights.
21 .
22
23 In the event you have a reading problem I below provide the inner part in a larger size.
20-2-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1
2
3 I am quoting below a copy of the text I earlier forwarded to Tara and one to Michelle on 19
4 February 2019
5
6 As I made clear from start I have signage’s at various locations on my property this so even if a
7 person was to claim not to have notice one there is always another one. What obviously is to me
8 utterly and totally absurd is the RACV somehow going along with IAG first it was a dispute
9 between neighbourne and now between me and the contractor even so the contractor never was
10 engaged in any work for either the neighbour or myself. At best the Real Estate Agent Jellis
11 Craig Eltham (being the agents managing 105 Graham Road, Viewbank) could have been the
12 one engaging and knowing the identity of the contractor but which was concealed from me and
13 only after the trespassing and destruction/malicious damage/theft had already eventuated did I
14 become aware of the identity of the contractor.
15
16 Michelle appears to indicate I could pursue matters with the Financial Industry Commission
17 whereas Tara indicates that this issue can be uplifted from Level 1 to Level 2. One has to ask
18 how many levels are there? Perhaps as many as the building or more? Why not get in the first
19 place a competent lawyer involved?
20 Not even this can somehow be managed by RACV to have it streamlined.
21
22 I below will include some images and it should be clear that so to say even Blind Freddy would
23 be aware that it is utter and sheer nonsense for any person to claim let alone for an insurance
24 company to accept that the demolition/malicious damages/theft as result of trespassing was all by
25 a mistake. I wonder is this the modus operandi by the RACV to deny rightful insurance claims?
26

Page 3
1 Look at the differences in fences! The slat fence is a private owned fence and the ivy is
2 attached to the joint wooden fence.
3
4
5 There is actually a small gap between the old deteriorating wooden fence with the neighbours ivy
6 and the new slat fence that is built upon the retaining wall.
7
8 So how did the worker Joe access my property but through the gates and walking around the
9 vehicle parked there and by this passing various signs!
Page 4
1
2 How can this be a mistake top unlawfully enter a property and then destroy/malicious damage
3 property and then steal the items also. After all the slats and the new retaining wall were
4 unlawfully removed from my property!
5
6 The question is that what would A FAIR MINDED PERSON do if say instructed by a real
7 estate agent to destroy the next door neighbour private property? In my view A FAIR MINDED
8 PERSON would ask; Where is the court order to allow me to enter against the notice on the
9 gate, etc? where is the court order to allow me to destroy another person’s private property?
10 Where is the court order to permit me to remove private property from another persons land?
11
12 In this case the contractor is as I afterwards discovered Mr Adrian Hillman a former police
13 officer who I view should have been well aware of the meaning of such a sign. Then again we
14 hear police such as in Lawyer X scandal to ignore basic rules of law but that cannot justify for
15 others to follow suit.
16
17 Over the years I have those signs displayed on my properties and there is a reason for this, to
18 keep out unauthorised entry from undesirable elements. And a proper reading of the signage’s
19 should make this clear.
20
21 As I explained in my previous correspondence:
22 You could also check out the following:
23
24 http://netk.net.au/Australia/Ibbett.asp
25 Networked Knowledge - Law Reports NSW v Ibbett 2006 HCA 57
26
27 CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 197 Destroying or damaging property
28 classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s197.html
29 Victorian Current Acts. [Index] [Table] ... CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 197. Destroying ... (a) his purpose or
30 one of his purposes is to destroy or damage property; or.
31
32 Destruction or Damage to Property in Victoria - Leanne Warren and ...
33 https://leannewarren.com.au/destruction-or-damage-to-property-in-victoria/
34 Jun 20, 2018 - In Victoria, it is an offence to intentionally cause damage to property ... You could also be
35 charged with an alternate offence of 'wilful damage' if the alleged damage to the ... [7] Summary Offences
36 Act 1966 (Vic) s 9(1)(c).
37
38 Theft and property damage | Victoria Legal Aid
39 https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal.../criminal.../theft-and-property-damage
40 Dec 17, 2013 - Information about theft and property damage offences, and possible ... Property damage
41 offences, also known as wilful or criminal damage ...
42
43 Wilful Damage - Doogue + George
44 https://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/offences/wilful-damage
45 Feb 1, 2019 - Do you need help with a charge of Wilful Damage? ... “SAC Statistics – Summary Offences
46 Act 1966 (Vic) : s 9 – wilfully damage, injure or ...
47 [DOC]
48
49 Summary Offences Act 1966
50 www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/...nsf/.../66-7405a095.doc
51 Jul 1, 2008 - Part I—Provisions Applicable Throughout Victoria. Division 1—Public order ... 9 Wilful
52 destruction, damage etc. of property. 9A Repealed.
53
54 7.5.4.1.1 - Bench Notes: Criminal Damage - Judicial College of Victoria
55 www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CCB/5189.htm
56 Criminal damage is an offence under Crimes Act 1958 s197(1). A number of related but discrete offences
57 have also been created by s197 and the surrounding ...
Page 5
1
2 Malicious damage | Australian Institute of Criminology
3 https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp120/malicious-damage
4 Common forms of malicious damage include vandalism, such as breaking windows and knocking over ...
5 Further, the commission of a malicious damage act may involve some risk for the vandals themselves. .....
6 Target location—Geelong, Vic.
7
8 Malicious Damage of Property - Armstrong Legal
9 https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/.../malicious-damage-to-property
10 WILL I GET A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FROM A MALICIOUS DAMAGE ... for an malicious damage to
11 property charge: As a result of amended legislation this ...
12
13 Malicious Damage Act 1861 - Wikipedia
14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Damage_Act_1861
15 Offence under section 35 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861. ... Obstructing railway, contrary to section 36
16 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861.
17
18 It should be clear that the courts never accepted that destruction of another’s property without
19 lawful excuse can permitted.
20
21 Obviously Jellis Craig Eltham would not particularly desire to accept liability because as was
22 indicated in NSW v Ibbett 2006 HCA 57 that a $400,000 compensation regarding trespassing is not
23 out of order.
24
25 So, obviously they prefer to do as if it has absolutely nothing to do with them.
26 .
27 Because the destruction/malicious damage/theft couldn’t be claimed to be on account of
28 managing the 105 property they wouldn’t want themselves being liable for any such and other
29 compensation. Yet, they claim that they provided WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS to Adrian
30 Hillman and that he had QUOTED for the job.
31 Hence I requested them for copies. After all where Aaron Yeats manager of Jellis Craig Eltham
32 claims to have this then well let them prove it.
33
34 The question also could be asked could any destruction, malicious damage or otherwise and the
35 theft have been done without trespassing. The answer is NO, This is because unless one access
36 my property one cannot do so.
37
38 RACV should also keep in mind that had I driven off in the motor vehicle registered RIKATI
39 not aware that worker Joe unlawfully had squeezed himself (on direct or indirect order of Adrian
40 Hillman) between the vehicle and the retaining wall then more than likely due to the gap
41 between the motor vehicle and the gate/fence pillar being a mere about 15 cm he would have
42 been killed if he was dragged by the vehicle.
43 Moreover, as he was using a crow bar (his only tool with him) to destroy/maliciously damage the
44 slat fence and retaining wall and by this damaged the paint work of the motor vehicle then for
45 the same he could have ruptured the gas tank and/or petrol tank and well that might have made a
46 utter mess of him also.
47 Then RACV as the motor vehicle insurer could have been sued in some manner regardless that it
48 was as result of trespassing.
49 In my view RACV should never deemed to accept that trespassing can be ignored or excused as
50 a mistake as this Adrian Hillman seeks to claim.
51 .
52 He could have but never did have asked prior permission from me to enter and obviously it
53 would not have suited him to do so as had he explained he wanted access to destroy my new slat

Page 6
1 fence and new wooden retaining wall then obviously I would have refused any permission to
2 enter, so any worker employed on his behalf.
3 .
4 Regardless if Adrian Hillman had a predetermined intention to inflict harm upon me perhaps
5 because of my decades of writings exposing police misuse and abuse of power and the Carl
6 Williams murder which I suspected was setup by the police, in the end it was Jellis Craig Eltham
7 who engaged him. Had they not done so nothing (of damage/theft/etc) cgmight have happened.
8 .
9 As my 19 September 2018 correspondence to Jellis Craig Eltham made clear I required prior
10 notification before the ivy and deteriorating wooden fence was to be removed as I then could
11 remove my vehicle to avoid damages to it and be ready to put up a safety fence so the 1 year old
12 toddler of the tenants of 105 Graham Road could not fall down onto my driveway, etc.
13 Stephany Hamel for Jellis Graig Eltham on 20 September 2018 responded to seek a quote, etc. In
14 her email communication she did indicate to provide me with prior notification of when a
15 contractor would attend to the work.
16 To date, being 20 February 2019 no contractor has attended to remove the ivy and the
17 deteriorating fence. As such whatever contractor Adrian Hillman was about it was not by prior
18 notification and neither to perform any work referred to in my 19 September 2018
19 correspondence to Aaron Yeats director of Jellis Craig Eltham manager for 105 Graham Road
20 property
21
22 It might very well have been that Stephanie as she claimed in email communication may have
23 provided written instructions what was to be quoted for, but Adrian Hillman may have quoted
24 for something else. It was then for Stephanie to check the quotation and reject it if it was not the
25 kind of work she desired to have done. If however she blatantly disregarded to check the
26 quotation and approved to destroy the slat fence and the retaining wall, then Jellis Craig Eltham
27 is liable.
28 .
29 It also could be, and this is merely assuming, that as I understand it Adrian Hillman has a
30 drinking problem and so may have been unable to provide a proper quotation. This also in view
31 that he claimed he never knew there was a wooden/timber fence. Alternatively the modus
32 operandi as I assume could have been that Adrian Hillman ordinary does the job and afterwards
33 provides a quote and perhaps loaded with a financial kickback for Jellis Craig Eltham. In such
34 manner Stephanie may rely upon the WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS as she may (albeit
35 wrongly) hold that any quotation was not relevant.
36 Either way, Jellis Craig Eltham would in my view be legally liable for any
37 trespassing/destruction/malicious damages/theft that eventuated.
38 Aaron Yeats in his email claims that Adrian admitted liability and therefore is between Adrian
39 Hillman and myself whole in the same email claiming I was aware of that he would be there. By
40 this comment that he claims I was aware he clearly must be deemed to imply that Adrian
41 Hillman was engaged as the contractor working for Jellis Craig Eltham. However, he is wrong
42 that I was aware that Adrian Hillman would come because my writings were specifically stating
43 I needed prior notification as to be able to move the vehicle and be ready to put up a safety fence.
44 As such the failure to notify clearly means I was not aware of Adrian Hillman attending.
45 The failure to notify clearly means no implied permission could have existed not even if Adrian
46 Hillman had only come to remove the ivy and remove the deteriorating wooden fence.
47 If Jellis Craig Eltham desired to make changed to conditions then it could but they didn’t have
48 requested me for accepting certain changes.
49
50 It is very clear that even if the gates are open, such as to drive the car out, then there are still
51 signs on display and can be viewed unobstructed that prior permission is required to enter.
Page 7
1 See image 20190217_173535 below

2
3
4
5 And again to walk around the vehicle in the driveway one then face a sign about 2 meters from
6 the gates that also requires for a person to have prior permission to enter which sign can be read
7 also from the area of the gates.
8
9 It doesn’t make sense to have this kind of retaining wall demolished. Surely, even if, not that I
10 accept this to be so, a person mistakenly holds to demolish the slat fence what on earth could
11 poses a person to destroy a retaining wall?
12
13
Page 8
1 The above photo (20190217_174414) shows that the letterbox also has the 107 number on it. As
2 such not even that in error a wrong property was entered could be held valid, as after all why
3 them steal the slats and the timber retaining wall and deposit it on the front lawn in the middle
4 near the tree of 105 Graham Road?
5
6 Actually for the record for years the following sign was on display but due to the gates and the
7 slat fence/retaining wall to be build I had to build a new letterbox assembly as the postman could
8 not access (with sitting on his bike) the stone mail pillar once the gates were in place.
9
10
11
12 It is therefore very clear that signage’s have existed for many years. And even where the person
13 has to check the gas metre readings another sign is displayed as shown above with the STOP
14 signs on it, this so the meter reader understands he can go no further.
15
16 In my view RACV should consult a competent lawyer who understand these kind of legal
17 issues.
18
19 I will now quote decision as notified by email and my response as well as my email earlier today
20 to Tara.
21
22 QUOTE 18-2-2019 Tara (RACV)
23
24 RE: see attachment 20190215-G. H.
25 Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M
26 Griffin, President & Chairman of the
27 Board
From Tara Maslin
To gerrit@inspector-rikati.com
Date Mon 12:57
Page 9
1
2 Message Body
3 Dear Mr Schorel-Hlavka
4
5 Thank you for your letters dated 31 January 2019, 12 February 2019, 13 February 2019 and 15 February
6 2019 addressed to the President and Chair of the RACV Board who has forwarded them to me for
7 investigation and response.
8
9 I can advise once our investigations are complete, we will be providing Mr Neil Taylor, MD & CEO with a
10 full review of your concerns, including the letters you have emailed me, and he will respond to you in
11 writing.
12
13 Should you have any further queries in relation to this matter, please contact me in our Member Relations
14 Department via email tara_maslin@racv.com.au and I will be pleased to assist.
15
16 Kind regards
17
18 Tara Maslin
19 Member Relations Consultant
20 Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) Ltd
21 485 Bourke Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000
22 t. 1800 675 958 | f. 03 9703 6058 |e. tara_maslin@racv.com.au
23
24 From: Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <gerrit@inspector-rikati.com>
25 Sent: Friday, 15 February 2019 12:45 AM
26 To: Tara Maslin <Tara_Maslin@racv.com.au>
27 Cc: Gerrit <gerrit@inspector-rikati.com>
28 Subject: see attachment 20190215-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin, President &
29 Chairman of the Board
30
31 Tara,
32 I have attached another correspondence to be passed on to Netta M Griffin, President &
33 Chairman of the Board and can you provide feedback if you actually do pass on the
34 attachment(s) when I email them to you?
35 .
36 Gerrit
37
38
41
42 20190213-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of the
43 Board
45 Madam,
46
47
48 see attachment 20190215-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin, President &
50 --
51
52 Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
53 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®
54 107 Graham Road
55 Viewbank 3084, Victoria, Australia
56

Page 10
1 Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal

2 issues.
3
4 THE MORAL OF A SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW IT PROVIDES FOR THE DISABLED
5
6 The information contained in this email is confidential, and it may not be intended for your use. If you are
7 not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or retention of this document is unauthorised. You
8 are asked to please delete the document immediately or contact the sender if you are not the intended
9 recipient.
10 END QUOTE 18-2-2019 Tara (RACV)
11
12 Ok about
13 QUOTE
14 I can advise once our investigations are complete, we will be providing Mr Neil Taylor, MD & CEO
15 with a full review of your concerns, including the letters you have emailed me, and he will respond
16 to you in writing.
17 END QUOTE
18
19 That is perhaps in the pipeline possibly before Xmas
20
21 QUOTE 19-2-2019 IAG decision
22
23 Our ref: RCV193017100
From racvhomeclaims@iag.com.au
To GERRIT SCHOREL-HLAVKA
Date Today 09:20
24
25 Attachments
26 1-1000357629.JPEG (~6 KB)Show options
27 28768553.JPEG (~5 KB)Show options
28 Complaints_RACV.pdf (~134 KB)Show options
29 Message Body
Our Reference: RCV193017100
Risk Details: 107 GRAHAM ROAD VIEWBANK VIC 3084
Incident Date: 05/12/2018
Dear Mr. SCHOREL-HLAVKA,
We refer to your claim lodged for damage sustained
We have reviewed your complaint relating to our decision not

to cover your claim as malicious damage. Upon reviewing the
correspondence you have sent to RACV relating to this claim,
you have stated that Jellis Craig Eltham, being the real estate
agency managing the neighbouring property, engaged the
Page 11
services of Budget Handyman Services, to remove the shared

deteriorated fence and ivy covering this fence. Although you
had requested that Jellis Craig Eltham obtain a quote to have
this work completed, you were not aware that they had
engaged someone to complete the work.
On the 5 December 2018 you discovered someone had

destroyed your newly built slat fence and retaining wall
situated within the boundary of your property. A person
identified as Joe notified you that the was instructed to remove
the slat fence.
It appears that the damage to your slat fence and retaining

wall were caused by the negligence of Budget Handyman
Services therefore, they are liable for the repairs. As per the e-
mail you received from Adrian Hillman of Budget Handyman
Services on the 6 December 2018, he has accepted
responsibility for the damage. As the damage was not caused
with intent, this would not be considered a malicious damage
claim, it was merely negligence on their part. As this appears
to be a Civil matter between yourself and Budget Handyman
Services, you are required to attempt recovery of repairs
directly from them.
We refer to the RACV Home Insurance policy, version 03/17,

page 19, under the heading “The events we cover”, it states:
Listed events:
 Storm
 Flood
 Water and oil leaks
 Tsunami
 Earthquake
 Lightning
 Fire
 Theft or attempted theft
 Vandalism or a malicious act
 Broken glass – buildings
 Broken glass – contents
 Impact damage
 Animal damage
 Explosion
 Riots or civil commotion.
As the damage to your property was not caused as a result of

a listed event, we are unable to cover this claim.
Page 12
We hope this has resolved the matter for you, alternatively

please contact me on (02) 8661-7041 quoting the reference
above should you wish to discuss the matter further.
However, if you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may

wish to pursue this further. If so, please refer to the enclosed
brochure outlining our complaint handling process. You will
see the next step in the process is to contact our Customer
Relations Department on 1800 045 517.
Should you wish to discuss this please contact us by

01/04/2019 otherwise you should regard this letter as our final
decision in relation to your complaint. If an issue has not been
resolved to your satisfaction, you can lodge a complaint with
the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, or AFCA. AFCA
provides fair and independent financial services complaint
resolution that is free to consumers.
Website: www.afca.org.au
Email: info@afca.org.au
Telephone:1800 931 678 (free call)
In writing
Australian Financial Complaints Authority
to:
GPO Box 3, Melbourne VIC 3001
AFCA is independent and administers the external segment of

the general insurance industry’s alternative dispute resolution
scheme, approved by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission.
Please note that AFCA may not consider your dispute unless it
is lodged within two years of the date of our final decision, and
there are other qualifying criteria. I encourage you to contact
AFCA to obtain advice about whether your dispute is eligible
for review.
You may also wish to consider independent legal or other

advice to assist you.
We have enclosed a brochure which outlines our dispute

resolution process should you not agree with our decision. You
can request access to certain information about you which we
have relied on in determining your claim, including copies of
any Service Suppliers’ or External Experts’ reports that we
relied on in assessing your claim. If we decline to release
information, you have the right to request a review of that
decision through our dispute resolution process.
Should you have any further queries regarding this matter

please contact me on the details listed below and I will be
pleased to assist.

Page 13
Yours sincerely
Michelle N
Specialist, Property Claims
Insurance Manufacturers of Australia Pty Ltd
Ph: (02) 8661-7041
Fax: 1300 729 598
Email: racvhomeclaims@iag.com.au
This information is confidential intended only for the use of the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may be legally privileged. If you are not
the intended recipient, any dissemination, copying, or the use of the
information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in
error please notify the sender immediately and destroy this notice and any
copies produced.
racv.com.au Insurance Manufacturers of Australia Pty Ltd

ABN 93 004 208 084 AFS License No 227678 trading as
RACV
PO Box 1233 Robinson VIC 3019
1
2 _____________________________________________________________________
3
4 The information transmitted in this message and its attachments (if any) is intended
5 only for the person or entity to which it is addressed.
6 The message may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
7 retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
8 upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
9 prohibited.
10
11 If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail
12 and associated material from any computer.
13
14 The intended recipient of this e-mail may only use, reproduce, disclose or distribute
15 the information contained in this e-mail and any attached files, with the permission
16 of the sender.
17
18 This message has been scanned for viruses.
19 END QUOTE 19-2-2019 IAG decision
20 .
21 QUOTE 19-2-2019 reply to Michelle N of IAG
22 Michelle,
23 obviously I do not agree with your conclusion this as Aaron Yeats himself in his email
24 while indicating Adrian Hillman admitted liability he also indicated that I was aware
25 that the contractor would attend. As such, Aaron Yeats by this indicated that Adrian
26 Hillman did act on behalf of Jellis Craig Eltham. However, as Joe the worker made
27 known to me on 5 December 2018 that Adrian has a drinking problem. I can only
28 assume that Adrian may have done a quote while perhaps under the influence of
29 alcohol and so prepared a quote not on what was to be done to the ivy and the
30 deteriorating wooden fence but to what he then saw this slat fence, etc. That in itself
31 may have been an error, however, where Jellis Craig Eltham approve the quote then it
32 is liable personally as a business as it could not claim to act upon behalf of the owners
33 of 105 Graham road in that the owners of 105 Graham Road itself had no legal
34 position to approve the destruction/damage of my privately owned fence. Hence Jellis
35 Craig Eltham could not be granted any delegated powers by the property owners of
36 105 Graham Road to demolish and or authorise a contractor to demolish the slat fence
37 and retaining wall and to trass pass and commit theft.

Page 14
1 It appears to me very obvious that Jellis Craig Eltham prefers to not take responsibility
2 as master-servant position to avoid being financially accountable.
3 .
4 The issue is that where Jellis Craig Eltham did indicate to require a quote then where
5 such quote, even if wrongly referring to a slat fence, then Jellis Craig Eltham
6 approving this must be legally liable.
7 .
8 For the RACV to argue that Adrian Hillman made an errors then let us consider what
9 errors there are if they are errors at all.
10 .
11 A quotation needs to identify the work to be quoted for. It may at times be a quote
12 that can be in error but then the Real Estate Agent in this case Jellis Craig Elltham
13 should have checked the details of the quote before approving it. Where they failed to
14 do so then they in fact unlawfully authorised this destruction/damage.
15 Next is that even if the quote and the approval were in error the fact that Joe gave me
16 the understanding that he questioned the destruction of the new slat fence and
17 according to him Adrian phoned Jellis Craig Eltham to clarify matters and was
18 instructed not to touch the ivy then is this also some errors?
19 .
20 The assessor of J.P Flynn in his report showed images and one shows clearly that
21 there was a deteriorating fence.
22
23 You may notice that photo 2 and 3 in the pdf Photo 1036050223218 shows the
24 deteriorating fence, whereas Adrian Hillman in his email communication claimed he didn’t
25 see any wooden fence.
26
27 We then have that Aaron Yeats claimed that I knew Adrian would attend this despite that
28 Aaron Yeats was made aware I was not given prior notification as I had stipulated was
29 required and therefore I was in no position to know that Adrian Hillman and/or any of his
30 workers would attend. Indeed as I explained had I been provided prior notification then I
31 could have avoided the destruction/damages.
32 As I explained any implied permission to enter my property was related to the removal of
33 the ivy and the deteriorating wooden fence, for so far this was required and not otherwise.
34
35 Can one then also hold it was an error that despite various signage indicating that it was
36 private property and prior permission was required that all those various signs were not
37 applicable?
38 .
39 Since the 5 December 2018 destruction/damages/trespassing/theft my wife only once came
40 in the front garden and very traumatized because of the destruction that was done. She
41 fears for her safety that even the backdoor now is locked whenever I am in the front
42 garden.
43 She has refused to make medical appointments as it would require her to go in to the front
44 garden and so I was left no alternative but to temporary rebuild the 2 sections of the slat
45 fence and retaining wall as by now nearly 11 weeks since the event that the lack of
46 cooperation by RACV left me no choice.
47
Page 15
1 *I will attached some images to show that the slat fence clearly is within my property
2 boundary and it is in my view sheer and utter nonsense to hold that the destruction was
3 merely an error.
4 .
5 It should be understood that trespassing is a criminal offence! Where then the destruction
6 eventuated by trespassing then it clearly cannot be considered an error.
7 .
8 Image 20190219_165459 shows the separation of the old fence with ivy and the slat fence
9 within the border of my property. To hold that someone makes a mistake is in my view
10 utterly ridiculous.
11 See also images 20190219_165510 & 20190219_165608
12
13 Image 20190219_165536 shows a side view about the ivy, etc.
14
15 There are besides the signage of private property, etc, also signage on the gates that when
16 they are open (such as to drive through) then signage of the same is visible where the
17 signage on the brick pillar is then obscured by the gate that is open.
18
19 The issue is that as the entry upon my property was a criminal act as no
20 authorization/permission was given to do so then the destruction/damages caused
21 subsequently cannot be considered a mistake either. It was a conduct that was by
22 trespassing.
23 .
24 As I did set out considerably, Mr Adrian Hillman is a former police officer and he
25 should/would have known that to enter my property would be a criminal offence without
26 prior authorization. As he made no attempt to seek such permission then the subsequently
27 destruction/damages cannot be regarded as a mistake.
28
29 As he removed the slats and the timber retaining wall and a frame from my property
30 unlawfully then I view this constitute theft having trespassed upon my property.
31 .
32 Obviously Mr Adrian Hillman would desire to claim that it was a mistake but this cannot
33 be considered as such considering the processes that were to be followed and he blatantly
34 disregarded this.
35 .
36 As I made clear I write about misuse and abuse of police officers and I suspect that Mr
37 Adrian Hillman may have desired to use the opportunity to inflict damages/harm upon me
38 if for example he or any of his former colleagues might have been directly or indirectly
39 involved in what I exposed.
40
41 Do not overlook he used his worker Joe to squeeze himself between the car and the slat
42 fence/retaining wall and had I unbeknown to this driven off he more than likely would
43 have ended up dead. This because the space was to narrow had he been caught by the car
44 and dragged along.
45
46 I for one find it appalling that the RACV has seemingly totally ignored, despite my past
47 writings, that, that the damages was after trespassing and as such part of an unlawful
48 conduct.
49 To hold a person can commit a crime and then excuse himself for having made a mistake.
50 Well it might have been a mistake to under estimate my determination to hold those
51 responsible accountable.
Page 16
1 .
2 For the record, Mr Adrian Hillman has never provided me with any details about any
3 lawyers he may engage or have engaged and neither provided any details as to his business
4 address, etc. Neither did Jellis Craig Eltham provide any details of their legal advisers.
5 .
6 Let use an example, that if say you (HYPHOTETICALLY) steal a motor vehicle and
7 smashed it up and then claim that it was a mistake, do you really think that the courts
8 would consider that smashing up the motor vehicle was a mistake after you stole the motor
9 vehicle? More than likely the court would hold that had you not stolen the motor vehicle
10 then you could not have gotten to make your self-proclaimed mistake. Would the RACV or
11 other insurance company then not pursue you for damages on behalf of the owner of the
12 motor vehicle you stole because you claim it was a mistake?
13 I think you better wise up that once you commit a criminal offence then whatever flows
14 from that cannot be excused as a MISTAKE.
15
16 Getting back to the slat fence, obviously I cannot finish this because of the
17 destruction/damages cause. And let me assure you I intend to pursue this matter further.
18
19 The RACV may still now reconsider and decide to still acknowledge that the claim is valid
20 within the provisions of the policy and should acknowledge its shoddy conduct to drag it
21 out so long and by this add to the trauma upon my wife by this unnecessary delay.
22 END QUOTE 19-2-2019 reply to Michelle N of IAG
23
24 QUOTE 20-2-2019 email from TARA (RACV)
25
26
27 Subject: RE: see attachment 20190215-G.
28 H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin,
29 President & Chairman of the Board
From Tara Maslin
To gerrit@inspector-rikati.com
Date Today 09:30 (20-2-2019)
30
31 Message Body
33
34 Thank you for your email.
35
36 I understand you have now received a copy of the Level 1 decision letter from Michelle Nadal, Specialist,
37 Property Claims who has maintained the decision to deny your claim as the damage to your property was
38 not caused from a listed event covered under your policy, and has been deemed to be a civil matter
39 between yourself and Budget Handyman Services.
40
41 I can advise if you are dissatisfied with this decision, the next step in our internal review process is to
42 refer your claim to our Customer Relations Department for a Level 2 review. Please confirm if you would
43 like me to arrange this for you?
44
45 Kind regards
46
47 Tara Maslin

Page 17

2
4 Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2019 12:06 AM
7 Subject: Re: see attachment 20190215-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin, President &
9
10 Tara,
11
12 in case you are not aware of it Michelle Nadal is currently reviewing the claim and indicated
13 she may need another 7 days to do so.
14 .
15 Gerrit
16
17 ---
18
21 107 Graham Road
23
25 issues.
26
28
29 On 2019-02-18 12:57, Tara Maslin wrote:
31
32 Thank you for your letters dated 31 January 2019, 12 February 2019, 13 February 2019 and 15 February
33 2019 addressed to the President and Chair of the RACV Board who has forwarded them to me for
34 investigation and response.
35
36 I can advise once our investigations are complete, we will be providing Mr Neil Taylor, MD & CEO with a
37 full review of your concerns, including the letters you have emailed me, and he will respond to you in
38 writing.
39
40 Should you have any further queries in relation to this matter, please contact me in our Member Relations
41 Department via email tara_maslin@racv.com.au and I will be pleased to assist.
42
43 Kind regards
44
45 Tara Maslin

Page 18
2
4 Sent: Friday, 15 February 2019 12:45 AM
7 Subject: see attachment 20190215-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin,
8 President & Chairman of the Board
9
10 Tara,
11 I have attached another correspondence to be passed on to Netta M Griffin, President &
12 Chairman of the Board and can you provide feedback if you actually do pass on the
13 attachment(s) when I email them to you?
14 .
15 Gerrit
16
17
20
21 20190213-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of the
22 Board
24 Madam,
25
26
27 see attachment 20190215-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Netta M Griffin, President &
29 --
30
33 107 Graham Road
35
37 issues.
38
40
41 The information contained in this email is confidential, and it may not be intended for your
42 use. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or retention of this
43 document is unauthorised. You are asked to please delete the document immediately or
44 contact the sender if you are not the intended recipient.
45 The information contained in this email is confidential, and it may not be intended for your use. If you are
46 not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or retention of this document is unauthorised. You
47 are asked to please delete the document immediately or contact the sender if you are not the intended
48 recipient.
49
50 END QUOTE 20-2-2019 email from TARA (RACV)
51
52 QUOTE 20-2-2019 my reply email to TARA (RACV)
53 Tara,
54
Page 19
1 I thank you for your email.
2 .
3 I intent to write to the president/chairman later today, so it be lifted to a level 2 as

4 you refer to.
5 .
6 It was idiotic that first the claim was held not to be substantiated because it was
7 deemed to be between 2 property owners as a fence dispute.
8 Now Michelle has claimed it is a dispute between me and the contractor, this even so I
9 never had any dealing with him neither knew of his existence prior to and at the time
10 of the destruction. Michelle claims that it was a mistake as claimed by Mr Adrian
11 Hillman. Well
12
13 Because my wife refused to make any medical appointments while the stat fence was
14 destroyed as it traumatised her since 5 December 2018 I had no choice but to use the
15 material for the other parts to rebuild the sections so my wife now is willing to go out.
16 That means for about 11 weeks she was in a sense like a prisoner in our own
17 property.
18 Safe to say my wife is furious that the RACV treats her like this after more than 50
19 years of membership.
20 Quite frankly I am fed up with the blatant ignorance of the president/Chairman as I

21 view she should have so to say gotten her hands dirty with personally checking what it
22 really is about.
23 If you look at image 20190219_165558 I have attached then surely one has to be
24 brain dead to accept that somehow Adrian Hillman by mistake ordered his worker Joe
25 to trespass upon my property and not only destroy the slat fence but also the
26 retaining wall underneath of it.
27 I have also attached image 20190219_165536 which clearly shows that the ivy and
28 deteriorating wooden fence were never part of the slat fence.
29 .
30 Why on earth would any FIAR MINDED PERSON accept that somehow the real estate
31 agents managing 105 Graham road could have authority without any court order to
32 direct a contractor to destroy not only the slat fence but even the new retaining wall
33 where they are clearly situated within the boundary of my property.
34 .
35 And the signage’s on various places on my property, including on the inside of the
36 gates (see image) so that when the gate is open one still can see a signage prohibits
37 access without prior permission. As such, it was a case of trespassing and this is in my
38 view a criminal act and any destruction/damage flowing from this is therefore
39 malicious damage.
40 If Netta had any common sense she would have not only rejected the decision to not
41 honour my lawful claim but might have pursued that those making such absurd
42 decisions are either re-educated in how to assess a claim or simply sent packing as
43 obviously they do not understand what is relevant.
44 .
Page 20
1 I am so to say battle hardened and as explained in the past had years of litigation
2 involving the Commonwealth and representing myself defeated them
3 comprehensively, however my wife is not of this calibre and when last week someone
4 had dislodged a stack of bricks near the back fence she immediately asked me if
5 Adrian Hillman might be the one who knowing no one seems to do anything against
6 him he now is stalking. Sher now insist that when I go into the front yard I lock the
7 doors behind (with a key) me so no one can enter the house.
8 I am now installing motion detectors as my wife is freaking out. After all she is 86 and
9 instead of living in peace and tranquillity had Adrian Hillman directing his worker Joe
10 to destroy our slat fence and retaining wall and then afterwards claim it was all a
11 mistake.
12 Well, one must be brain dead to accept this kind of nonsense, as clearly and in
13 particular that he is a former police officer, he should be well aware that you cannot
14 go around destroying the private property of someone without a court order to permit
15 this.
16
17 When I was an insurance agent I even so being the top earner then suddenly quite
18 because I discovered dirty practices by the manager against his clients. I went to
19 reinstate many but only after ensuring that their policies were fit for them, not the
20 rubbish the manager had put them into. Then in 20o08 I requested within the AMP
21 constitution to be made a director but Brian Salter obstructed this even so within the
22 provisions of the AMP constitution I should have been accepted,. Instead Brian Salter
23 in violation had an existing board member nominating, after closing of nominations, as
24 to prevent me to be appointed. I had no doubt that my opposition of citizens being
25 ripped off by insurance companies might have been why Brian Salter opposed me to
26 be a board member. Anyhow, in 2018 (ten years later) I made my submission about it
27 to the financial Service Royal commission and coincidental or not the following day
28 Brian Salter and other board members resigned. I did however in my submission
29 urged for the imprisonment of directors where they act inappropriately to the
30 criminality.
31 .
32 I have decided that I will write to Netta and post a copy on my blog so my readers can
33 for themselves evaluate if the slat fence and the retaining wall underneath of it really
34 could be mistaken by a contractor or that as I view Adrian Hillman being a former
35 police officer may have used the opportunity to deliberately destroy the slat fence and
36 retaining wall as perhaps to get back on me for exposing police abuse and misuse over
37 the decades And more recently to what I view was the police setting up the murder of
38 Carl Williams.
39 .
40 One could ask did Netta bother to look at any pictures herself to realise that it is utter
41 and sheer nonsense to claim to demolish a new slat fence and new retaining wall
42 existing on a private property by trespassing but leave a deteriorating wooden fence
43 and ivy untouched?
44 .
45 It is not that the contractor was demolishing the deteriorating wooden fence and
46 removing the ivy and then accidentally damaged the slat fence. Nor that the retaining
47 wall was removed to allow spraying of the ground after the ivy roots had been digged
48 out.

Page 21
1 And as Joe the worker made clear he wanted to dismantle the slat fence without
2 damage but was instructed by his boss Adrian Hillman to rip it out. As such the
3 instructions were to deliberately damage the slat fence and retaining wall as it could
4 have been disassembled without any damage.
5 While not an issue for RACV, I today was walking past the ivy fence when I felt some
6 spider web on my arm. Within minutes I became unwell and soon ended upgoing into
7 the house to bed. This is precisely what I warned about in my original 19September
8 2018 correspondence to Jellis Craig Eltham that there is a danger with spiders for the
9 1 year old toddler residing on 105 Graham Road.
10 As with my July 2016 warning to prevent anyone to use the tram tracks to enter
11 Bourke Street mall as this could be done for purpose of mass murder, something I
12 repeated in December 2016 to all state and federal politicians it was ignored and well
13 on 20 January 2017 6 people ended up being murdered. This could have been
14 avoided.
15 .
16 I know too well that so to say I am constantly dealing with brain dead people who are
17 blatantly ignorant to reality.
18
19 I am already in a legal battle of about 25 years that even may in fact be relevant to
20 yourself also. It is about using highly poisoned untreated water to grow wheat and
21 then when you and your family members are sitting down to have a health breakfast
22 menu such as Wheatbix or so you in fact might be poisoning yourself and your family.
23 In 1991 my uncle Gerrit came to visit me from The Netherlands within hours of
24 arriving in Berriwillock (one of the towns with untreated water) he was dead.
25 So let it not be ignored that small children who may go for a trip with the school bus
26 to visit a country area could be next ending up in the morgue. You may just hope not
27 one of your family members may ending up like that. After all despite legal
28 requirements no one (other than that I did so on my country property) has any
29 warning that the tap water is dangerous (see Health Department website) and should
30 not be consumed as drink water.
31 .
32 Let me make it clear I do not get paid for those battles as I do it because like the killer
33 of the 6 people on 20 January 2017 made clear he ended up doing so out of
34 frustration. That is the kind of people I have been dealing with since 1982 with my
35 special lifeline service MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®.
36 While I intended to be insured by RACV because of its brand name it rturns out rthat
37 the emails I received were from iag.com
38
39 Search for: What does IAG stand for?
40 What insurance companies does IAG own?
41 IAG operates some of Australia's leading general insurance brands including
42 NRMA Insurance, CGU, SGIO, SGIC, Swann Insurance, WFI and Lumley
43 Insurance.Dec 3, 2018
44
45 Australia | IAG Limited

Page 22
1
2
3 https://www.iag.com.au/about-us/what-we-do/our-business/australia
4
5 Search for: What insurance companies does IAG own?
6 Who underwrites CGU?
7 CGU Insurance Limited is an Australian intermediary-based insurance company
8 and forms part of Insurance Australia Group (IAG). CGU Insurance was formed
9 through the global merger of Commercial Union plc and NZI's parent company,
10 General Accident plc.
11
12 This, whereas your emails come from racv.com.au.
13
14 It appears therefore that RACV is so to say a mere front and not really making the
15 decisions as to insurance claims. It merely appears to me to be some kind of a
16 portal/agent.
17
18 This I had not been aware of previously, as now the claims seems to be decided by
19 IAG and not RACV itself.
20
21 My readers might be interested to discover this also and likewise that somehow IAG
22 holds it was a mere mistake that a former police officer ignores various signage’s as
23 to PRIVATE PROPERTY even citing High Court of Australia rulings and then direct a
24 worker to demolish a new slat fence and new retaining wall.
25 To me because it was done by trespassing which I view is a criminal offence then

26 anything flowing from that also is a criminal offence.
27
28 The ATO (Australian Taxation Office) published the following:
29 QUOTE
30 fair and equitable and it must also appear to be fair and equitable. Decisions should be
31 made on the basis of the merits of the issue under consideration.
32 Acting according to the law
33 Acting according to the law is of primary importance in making fair and equitable
34 decisions. Public servants need to know and understand any laws they administer. They
35 must ensure that they take administrative actions and make decisions consistent with the
36 legislation governing their work. It is incumbent on all managers and supervisors to inform
37 their staff of any legislation for which they are responsible, and to provide appropriate
38 training in administering this legislation. Staff should be particularly careful in using
39 statutory powers. Some factors to consider are:
40 • does the legislation authorise the decision?
41 • is there a delegation and jurisdiction to make the decision?; and
42 • does the decision comply with procedures which are required by law?
Page 23
1
2 END QUOTE
3
4 While we are not now dealing with public servants nevertheless it is worthwhile to keep in
5 mind the principles it indicates should be applied.
6 .
7 My insurance was for all I knew with RACV not IAG and I was entitled to have RACV
8 assessing the claim. It is irrelevant to me if RACV may rely upon IAG because I have a
9 contract with RACV.
10 So far it appears that RACV has delegated the assessment of the claim to IAG and so I
11 view it has ongoing escalated the problems.
12
13 RACV could change its backing to any other company but it cannot and should not alter
14 my rights I am entitled upon having a policy with RACV.
15
16 As I indicated above now intent to publish a copy of my writing so my readers for
17 themselves may assess what they consider is reasonable and if RACV realty could be
18 trusted on any insurance police it engages in when as I view it not honouring its
19 commitments.
20
21 I draw your attention to the Authority partly quoted below. It must be clear that not only I
22 had the relevant authorities shown but I even included the word STP on either side.
23
24 Hence, ignoring this kind of signage doesn’t alter the fact that it was trespassing a criminal
25 act and any destruction/damages subsequently caused after such trespassing is malicious
26 damage in particular where it is specifically instructed to cause the damage.
27 See attachments 20151109-Trespass-STOP and 20151109-Trespass-
28
29
30 Kuru v NSW [2008] HCA 26 (12 June 2008) - Tort-Trespass
31 QUOTE
32 KURU v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [2008] HCA26 (12 June 2008)
33 Justices Gleeson, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne brought forward to 2008 what was said in 1991
34 in Plenty v Dillon by saying at [43]" As was pointed out in this Court's decision in Plenty v
35 Dillon, it is necessary to approach questions of the kind now under consideration by
36 recognising the importance of two related propositions.
37 First, a person who enters the land of another must justify that entry by showing either that the
38 entry was with the consent of the occupier or that the entrant had lawful authority to enter.
39 Secondly, except in cases provided for by the common law and by statute, police officers have
40 no special rights to enter land. "and Justices Gleeson, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne brought
41 forward to 2008 what was said in 1984 in Halliday v Nevill by saying at [45]" In Halliday v
42 Nevill, this Court held that if the path or drive way leading to the entrance of a suburban
43 dwelling-house is left unobstructed, with any entrance gate unlocked, and without indication by
44 notice or otherwise that entry by visitors or some class of visitors is forbidden, the law will
45 imply a licence in favour of any member of the public to go on that path or driveway for any
46 legitimate purpose that in itself involves no interference with the occupier's possession or
47 injury to the person or property of the occupier, or the occupier's guests.
Page 24
1 But as Brennan J pointed out in his dissenting opinion in Halliday, there are cases in which it is
2 necessary to recognise that when it is police officers who seek to enter the land of another
3 here is 'a contest between public authority and the security of private dwellings'. "In the High
4 Court of Australia HALLIDAY v NEVILL [1984] HCA80; (1984) 155CLR1 (6 December 1984)
5 Justice Brennan said at [18] ".....A police officer, in common with any other person on
6 legitimate business, has an implied licence from the occupier of a dwelling-house 'to come
7 through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the door of the house' (per Lord Parker C.J. in
8 Robson v. Hallett, at p 951). That, as Lord Widgery C.J. explained in Brunner v. Williams
9 (1975) 73 LGR 266, at p 272, 'means that anyone who has any genuine reason for wishing to
10 enter the house or the garden has implied licence from the occupier to approach the front or
11 nearest door and ask whether he may be given permission for what he wishes to do'. Now a
12 licence in the terms thus discussed is fairly to be implied in the generality of cases as an
13 incident of living in society. Unless a notice says "Keep Out" it is, generally speaking,
14 reasonable to imply a licence to come up and ask 'May I come in?' "
15 In the High Court of AustraliaPLENTY v DILLON [1991] 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 Judge 1
16 (Justices Mason, Brennan and Toohey) at [4] and [5] said" 4. The starting point is the
17 judgment of Lord Camden L.C.J. in Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029, at p 1066: 'By
18 the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No
19 man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though
20 the damage be nothing ... If he admits the fact, he is bound to shew by way of justification, that
21 some positive law has empowered or excused him.' And see Great Central Railway Co. v.
22 Bates (1921) 3 KB 578, at p 582; Morris v. Beardmore (1981) AC 446, at p 464. The principle
23 applies to entry by persons purporting to act with the authority of the Crown as well as to entry
24 by other persons. As Lord Denning M.R. said in Southam v. Smout (1964) 1 QB 308, at p 320,
25 adopting a quotation from the Earl of Chatham:' "The poorest man may in his cottage bid
26 defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may
27 blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot
28 enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. "So be it - unless he
29 has justification by law. 'And in Halliday v. Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1, Brennan J. said (at p 10):
30 'The principle applies alike to officers of government and to private persons. A police officer
31 who enters or remains on private property without the leave and licence of the person in
32 possession or entitled to possession commits a trespass and acts outside the course of his
33 duty unless his entering or remaining on the premises is authorized or excused by law.' "" 5.
34 The proposition that any person who 'set(s) his foot upon my ground without my licence ... is
35 liable to an action' in trespass is qualified by exceptions both at common law and by
36 statute.........."
37 Judge 2 (Justices Gaudron and McHugh) at [1] and [4] said" 1. The question in this appeal is
38 whether a police officer has the right under the law of South Australia to enter private property
39 for the purpose of serving a summons after the occupier of the property has notified the officer
40 that he or she has no permission to enter the land."" 4. .....Consent to an entry is implied if the
41 person enters for a lawful purpose. In Robson v. Hallett (1967) 2 QB 939, Lord Parker C.J.
42 said (at p 951): 'the occupier of any dwelling-house gives implied licence to any member of the
43 public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the
44 door of the house. 'This implied licence extends to the driveway of a dwelling-house: Halliday.
45 However, the licence may be withdrawn by giving notice of its withdrawal. A person who
46 enters or remains on property after the withdrawal of the licence is a trespasser.........."

Page 25
1 New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57 (12 December 2006)HIGH COURT OF
2 AUSTRALIA, GLEESON CJ, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ STATE OF
3 NEW SOUTH WALES APPELLANT AND DOROTHY ISABEL IBBETT RESPONDENT New
4 South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57 10 12 December 2006S227/2006 ORDER Appeal
5 dismissed with costs. On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales [Extracts]
6 Exemplary damages 20 38.
7 The common law fixes by various means a line between the interests of the individual in
8 personal freedom of action and the interests of the State in the maintenance of a legally
9 ordered society. An action for trespass to land and an award of exemplary damages has long
10 been a method by which, at the instance of the citizen, the State is called to account by the
11 common law for the misconduct of those acting under or with the authority of the Executive
12 Government [19]. Indeed, the first reported use of the expression "exemplary damages" may
13 have been by Pratt LCJ [20] in Huckle v Money[21]. Huckle was one of several tort actions in
14 the Court of Common Pleas [22] arising from the use by the administration of George Grenville
15 [23] of general warrants in its campaign in the 1760s against the 30 activities of John Wilkes
16 and the publication styled the North Briton. The jury in Huckle awarded no less than £300
17 damages, an enormous sum for the times, and the Lord Chief Justice said they were not
18 excessive. 39. Windeyer J later doubted whether the origin of the idea conveyed by the term
19 "exemplary damages" was as recent as Huckle [24]. However that may be, what is well
20 established is that an award of exemplary damages may serve "a valuable purpose in
21 restraining the arbitrary and outrageous use of executive power" and "oppressive, arbitrary or
22 unconstitutional action by the servants of the government". The words are those of Lord
23 Devlin, no supporter of the general use 40 of this remedy [25]. His Lordship added that [26]:
24 "the servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power
25 must always be subordinate to their duty of service".
26 ___________________________________________________________________________
27 ________________________1 (Extracts: Exemplary damages—At 38, 39, 40 Vicarious
28 liability—At 41 The case law—At 48) New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57A Court Case
29 dealing with Trespass upon land by those from the Executive Government.
30 40. In Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [27], Lord Hutton considered
31 these remarks of Lord Devlin with the added authority of his own judicial experience in
32 Northern Ireland, including his award of exemplary damages in Pettigrew v Northern Ireland
33 Office [28]. Lord Hutton concluded in Kuddus [29]: "I think that a number of cases decided by
34 the courts in Northern Ireland during the past 30 years of terrorist violence give support to the
35 opinion of Lord Devlin in Rookes v Barnard [30] that in certain cases the awarding of
36 exemplary damages serves a valuable purpose in restraining the arbitrary and 10 outrageous
37 use of executive power and in vindicating the strength of the law. Members of the security
38 forces seeking to combat terrorism face constant danger and have to carry out their duties in
39 very stressful conditions. In such circumstances an individual soldier or police officer or prison
40 officer may, on occasion, act in gross breach of discipline and commit an unlawful act which is
41 oppressive or arbitrary and in such cases exemplary damages have been awarded. "His
42 Lordship added [31]: "In my opinion the power to award exemplary damages in such cases 20
43 serves to uphold and vindicate the rule of law because it makes clear that the courts will not
44 tolerate such conduct. It serves to deter such actions in future as such awards will bring home
45 to officers in command of individual units that discipline must be maintained at all times.
46 "Vicarious liability 41.

Page 26
1 In previous times, the situation respecting vicarious liability in tort was complicated by the rules
2 respecting Crown immunity in England. On that subject, and with reference to the reasons of
3 Cockburn LCJ in Feather v The Queen [32], Gummow and Kirby JJ remarked in The
4 Commonwealth v Mewett[33]:30 "[A] servant of the Crown was responsible at common law for
5 a tortious act done to a fellow subject, although done by the authority of the Crown, and to that
6 tortfeasor the immunity of the Crown would afford no defence. Moreover, in most instances,
7 the action against the officer or servant of the Crown would have the same effect as a petition
8 of right would have, 'since, in a proper case, the Crown [would] defend its officer and become
9 responsible for any damages awarded' [34]. "The first sentence of that passage explains the
10 constitution of the actions against the under-secretary of State, King's messenger and other
11 officials sued in the saga 40 of John Wilkes during the reign of King George III. The second
12 sentence explains why the personal means of comparatively lowly officials, sued at a time
13 when Crown immunity still barred a direct action, would not constrain awards of exemplary
14 damages.
15 ___________________________________________________________________________
17 liability—At 41 The case law—At 48) New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57A Court Case
18 dealing with Trespass upon land by those from the Executive Government
19 The case law 48.
20 In the United States,the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentand the prohibition
21 by the Eighth Amendment upon excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments have
22 been used to place constitutional restraints upon the levels of exemplary damages awards by
23 State court juries [48].There is also a long line of authority in the United States which denies
24 awards of exemplary damages against State municipal corporations which violate the
25 constitutional rights of plaintiffs; such awards have been said by the United States Supreme
26 Court to be "contrary to sound public policy" for the reason that they "would burden the very
27 taxpayers and citizens for whose benefit the wrongdoer was being chastised" [49].To that, the
28 answer of those today of like mind with Pratt LCJ in 1763, and Lord Devlin in 1964, would be
29 that in these cases the proceeds of taxation represent the price paid for maintaining respect by
30 public officials for the observance of the rule of law, to the benefit of taxpayers and society as
31 a whole.
32 ___________________________________________________________________________
34 liability—At 41 The case law—At 48)New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57A Court Case
35 dealing with Trespass upon land by those from the Executive Government
36 Extracts re Trespass] Plenty v Dillon [1991] HCA 5 (7 March 1991)(1991) 171 CLR 635HIGH
37 COURT OF AUSTRALIA Mason C.J.Brennan, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ.JUSTICES
38 MASON, BRENNAN AND TOOHEY at [4] and [5] said:- “4. The starting point is the judgment
39 of Lord Camden L.C.J.in Entick v. Carrington [1765] EWHC J98; (1765) 19 St Tr 1029, at p
40 1066: "By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a
41 trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an
42 action, though the damage be nothing ...If he admits the fact, he is bound to shew by way of
43 justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. "And see Great Central
44 Railway Co. v. Bates (1921) 3 KB 578, at p 582; Morris v. Beardmore (1981) AC 446, at p
45 464.The principle applies to entry by persons purporting to act with the authority of the Crown
46 as well as to entry by other persons. As Lord Denning M.R. said in Southam v. Smout (1964) 1
47 QB 308, at p 320, adopting a quotation from the Earl of Chatham:"'The poorest man may in his
Page 27
1 cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the
2 wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England
3 cannot enter - all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. 'So be it -
4 unless he has justification by law. "And in Halliday v. Nevill [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1,
5 Brennan J. said (at p 10): "The principle applies alike to officers of government and to private
6 persons. A police officer who enters or remains on private property without the leave and
7 licence of the person in possession or entitled to possession commits a trespass and acts
8 outside the course of his duty unless his entering or remaining on the premises is authorized
9 or excused by law." ”“5. The proposition that any person who "set(s) his foot upon my ground
10 without my licence ... is liable to an action" in trespass is qualified by exceptions both at
11 common law and by statute.
12 ”__________________________________________________________________________
13 ____________ Extracts re Trespass Plenty v Dillon [1991] HCA 5 Page 1 of 2
14
15 JUSTICES GAUDRON AND McHUGH at [1] and [4] said:-“1. The question in this appeal is
16 whether a police officer has the right under the law of South Australia to enter private property
17 for the purpose of serving a summons after the occupier of the property has notified the officer
18 that he or she has no permission to enter the land.”“4. The common law right of entry The
19 policy of the law is to protect the possession of property and the privacy and security of its
20 occupier: Semayne's Case [1572] Eng R 333;(1604) 5 Co Rep 91a, at p 91b [1572] Eng R
21 333; (77 ER 194, at p 195); Entick v. Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275, at p 291 [1765] EWHC
22 J98; (95 ER 807, at p 817); Southam v. Smout (1964) 1 QB 308, at p 320; Eccles v. Bourque
23 (1975) 2 SCR. 739, at pp 742-743;(1974) 50 DLR (3d) 753, at p 755; Morris v. Beardmore
24 (1981) AC 446, at p 464.
25 A person who enters the property of another must justify that entry by showing that he or she
26 either entered with the consent of the occupier or otherwise had lawful authority to enter the
27 premises: Entick, at p 291 (p 817 of ER);Morris v. Beardmore, at p 464;Southam v. Smout, at
28 p 320;Halliday v. Nevill [1984] HCA 80; (1984) 155 CLR 1, at p 10. Except in the cases
29 provided for by the common law and by statute, constables of police and those acting under
30 the Crown have no special rights to enter land: Halliday, at p 10. Consent to an entry is implied
31 if the person enters for a lawful purpose. In Robson v. Hallett (1967) 2 QB 939, Lord Parker
32 C.J. said (at p 951): "the occupier of any dwelling-house gives implied licence to any member
33 of the public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock
34 on the door of the house." This implied licence extends to the driveway of a dwelling-house:
35 Halliday. However, the licence may be withdrawn by giving notice of its with drawal. A person
36 who enters or remains on property after the withdrawal of the licence is a trespasser. In Davis
37 v. Lisle (1936) 2 KB 434, police officers who had lawfully entered a garage for the purpose of
38 making enquiries were held to have become trespassers by remaining in the garage after they
39 were told by the proprietor to "get outside".
40 END QUOTE
41
42 As I explained that in view that the work referred to in my 19 September 2018
43 correspondence to Jellis Craig Eltham was not even considered to be done by the
44 contractor (so his employee Joe) than any implied permission to enter could not exist either
45 as any such implied permission would have been strictly relating to the work referred to.
46 .

Page 28
1 Let simplify this for you. As an employee you are entitled to enter certain areas of the
2 building you work at in relation to your job assignments, however you could not claim
3 being authorized to enter the building say after closing time when you may desire to enter
4 for purpose of inappropriate/unlawful use. Implied permission to access the building and
5 move about is strictly limited to the performance of your job. If you were to enter, even
6 during working time, but not to perform any work but for illegal conduct then you would
7 be trespassing, at least that is my view.
8
9 Another example:
10 A doctor working at a hospital may access a medicine cabinet to provide medication for a
11 patient he is attending to but if he were to access the medication cabinet for personal
12 purposes not relating to his employment then he could be deemed to be trespassing and
13 stealing, etc.
14 .
15 Again, look at the images I have attached and see if you really would have a problem, or
16 for that any fair minded person to notice there are 2 different type of fences. As such, even
17 if the contractor was engaged to remove a fence by the managers of 105 Graham Road then
18 it is utterly ridiculous to hold that by mistake he would destroy a slat fence and retaining
19 wall on 107 Graham Road and leave the deteriorating wooden fence and ivy intact.
20 For the RACV it is important to notice that I did request Jellis Craig Eltham to provide me
21 with the WRITTEN instructions it claimed they provided to the contractor Adrian Hillman
22 and the QUOTE they indicated they required from him. Also details if Adrian Hillman did
23 contact Jellis Craig Eltham on urging of his worker Joe. The refusal by Jellis Craig Eltham
24 to provide the very documentation it relies upon to claim that Adrian Hillman acted in
25 violation of their instructions clear appears to indicate they are well aware that they are in
26 the wrong but try to hide it.
27 .
28 Where Jellis Craig Eltham beyond their powers as manages for the 105 graham Road
29 property authorized, even if inadvertly, the destruction of my new slat fence and new
30 retaining wall, then they are liable and all Adrian Hillman did was in a master-servant
31 situation admit liability on behalf of Jellis Craig Eltham. In my view they cannot claim to
32 have acted for and on behalf of the property owner of 105 Graham Road this as the
33 property owner of 105 Graham Road had no authority to direct himself or through any
34 agents to destroy my slat fence and retaining wall unless by having a court order that
35 permitted this.
36 .
37 As for the criminal conduct of trespassing for this I view Adrian Hillman can be held liable
38 as he knew or should have known that the signage’s denied him access.
39 .
40 As indicated you can escalate it to level 2 albeit I will write to Netta as I view she should
41 have been hands on about this and avoided this rot to go on and on.
42 .
43 Gerrit
44 END QUOTE 20-2-2019 my reply email to TARA (RACV)
45
46 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
47 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)
48 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
49 (Our name is our motto!)


20190220-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of The Board

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

20190220-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To Netta M Griffin, President & Chairman of The Board

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Page 1

20-2-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20-2-2019 Page 2 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20-2-2019 Page 5 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 See image 20190217_173535 below

20-2-2019 Page 9 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 Author of INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on certain constitutional and other legal

27 28768553.JPEG (~5 KB)Show options

28 Complaints_RACV.pdf (~134 KB)Show options

Our Reference: RCV193017100

Risk Details: 107 GRAHAM ROAD VIEWBANK VIC 3084

Incident Date: 05/12/2018

Dear Mr. SCHOREL-HLAVKA,

We refer to your claim lodged for damage sustained

We have reviewed your complaint relating to our decision not

services of Budget Handyman Services, to remove the shared

On the 5 December 2018 you discovered someone had

It appears that the damage to your slat fence and retaining

We refer to the RACV Home Insurance policy, version 03/17,

As the damage to your property was not caused as a result of

We hope this has resolved the matter for you, alternatively

However, if you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may

Should you wish to discuss this please contact us by

Telephone:1800 931 678 (free call)

GPO Box 3, Melbourne VIC 3001

AFCA is independent and administers the external segment of

You may also wish to consider independent legal or other

We have enclosed a brochure which outlines our dispute

Should you have any further queries regarding this matter

20-2-2019 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

racv.com.au Insurance Manufacturers of Australia Pty Ltd

PO Box 1233 Robinson VIC 3019

20-2-2019 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20-2-2019 Page 16 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

1 t. 1800 675 958 | f. 03 9703 6058 |e. tara_maslin@racv.com.au

46 Member Relations Consultant

47 Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) Ltd

48 485 Bourke Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

1 t. 1800 675 958 | f. 03 9703 6058 |e. tara_maslin@racv.com.au

1 I thank you for your email.

3 I intent to write to the president/chairman later today, so it be lifted to a level 2 as

20 Quite frankly I am fed up with the blatant ignorance of the president/Chairman as I

20-2-2019 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

20-2-2019 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

25 To me because it was done by trespassing which I view is a criminal offence then

20-2-2019 Page 24 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6 Exemplary damages 20 38.

46 "Vicarious liability 41.

19 The case law 48.

20-2-2019 Page 27 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

48 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

49 (Our name is our motto!)

You might also like