KANGAROO COURT OF AUSTRALIA

In re God; ex parte Sydney Astronomy Society

[1998] KCA 47

Judgment of the Honourable Justice Fisting

HIS HONOUR: This application for interlocutory relief has been brought as a matter of urgency by the Sydney Astronomy Society. As I understand it, there is some kind of unusual celestial phenomenon occurring tonight which the Society is anxious to view at its Observatory in outer Sydney. However, a series of clouds owned by the respondent (“God”) have converged over the Observatory and are at present obstructing any attempt to view the sky through the Observatory’s telescopes. The Society is concerned that the clouds will disrupt its planned observation activities tonight and accordingly applies for an order directing the respondent to remove his clouds immediately. Further, the Society seeks an injunction restraining the respondent from proceeding with a thunder storm which is said to be planned for this evening.

Upon being informed of the nature of the present proceedings I was initially concerned about whether the Court has the jurisdiction to grant the relief being sought as the respondent is not a subject of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, counsel for the Society pointed out that the respondent, even if not a subject, nonetheless had a presence in the Commonwealth and this alone was sufficient to enliven the Court’s jurisdiction. I am satisfied that this is the correct position and proceed on the basis that there is no jurisdictional barrier preventing the Court from granting any relief that it sees fit.

The Society intends to bring actions in trespass and nuisance over what it describes as a longstanding and contumelious disregard by the respondent of the Society’s private property and more specifically the Society’s right to the quiet enjoyment of its Observatory and the airspace above it. According to the Society, the respondent has been operating his clouds in the Society’s airspace since at least 1978 when the Society purchased the land. The Society complains that the respondent has made no attempt to accommodate the Society’s repeated requests to divert the clouds elsewhere and that furthermore, the clouds have periodically discharged water over the Society’s property and disrupted outdoor activities.

It seems to me that the Society has a very strong case against the respondent and this fact alone suggests that there are strong grounds for a grant of interlocutory relief. The trespass and nuisance proceedings are not scheduled to be heard for some time and in the meantime the Society will be deprived of the use of its Observatory if no injunction is granted today. I decline to make any finding relating to the Society’s allegation that the respondent’s actions are motivated by malice, but it is nonetheless clear that an order in the terms sought by the Society would not cause any prejudice or inconvenience to the respondent. In summary, I find that the balance of convenience favours the grant of relief. Mr Shaft, do you have any further submissions to make as to the specific form of the orders?

SHAFT QC (for the Society): Your Honour, my client has drawn my attention to the fact that the second order relating to the storm is actually redundant because the respondent will not be able to proceed with the storm if he does not have any clouds available at his disposal.

HIS HONOUR: Yes I understand your point. Very well, I shall disregard the storm order and simply order that the respondent remove his clouds by 6pm this evening. The respondent shall pay the Society’s costs.

With this seal it is hereby certified that the above paragraphs are a true record of the reasons for judgment given by the Hon. Justice Fisting.

Click here to return to Judgments Index.

Click here to find out how to gain access to judgments not on this site.