David Walter

In Legal Services Commissioner v Walter [2011] QSC 132 1 the Legal Services Commissioner applied pursuant to s 703 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) for an injunction to restrain David John Walter from engaging in legal practice in the State of Queensland when not an Australian legal practitioner, after the respondent had repeatedly sought, in many different proceedings, to ventilate a fundamentally misconceived legal argument, and has done so indirectly by advancing these arguments through the cases brought by other parties, providing advice to the plaintiffs to commence proceedings, drafting correspondence, pleadings and submissions in the proceedings, at times corresponding on behalf of the plaintiffs with other parties to the litigation, and purporting to act as the agent of one of the plaintiffs. Each of these proceedings has been based upon identical, peculiar notions of the law, which have also been unsuccessfully espoused by the respondent himself in previous litigation.

The extent of the respondent’s involvement in proceedings on behalf of Mrs Burns led to P Lyons J ordering on 27 April 2010 that the respondent pay the costs of the other parties to that litigation. (Burns & Ors v Cassowary Coast Regional Council (unreported, Supreme Court, Cairns, P Lyons J, 27 April 2010).) (See also in that regard the observations of Jerrard JA in Burns v State of Queensland & Croton [2007] QCA 240 2 (at 5) He has also sought to advance these mistaken notions in other forums, such as in Lade and Company Pty Ltd v Finlay & Ors [2010] QSC 382: 3

“Mr Lade initially sought an adjournment so that his case could be argued by David Walter who for personal reasons could not attend the hearing. I note that Mr Walter has conducted similar arguments in some of the cases and failed: see Burns v State of Queensland & Croton [2006] QCA 235; 4 Wilson v Raddatz [2006] QCA 392; 5 and Glasgow v Hall [2007] QCA 19. 6 See also the decision of P Lyons J in Burns & Ors v Cassowary Coast Regional Council (Unreported, Cairns, 27 of 2010, 27 April 2010). Costs orders have been made against Mr Walter in some cases.”

Whilst there was no evidence that the respondent received remuneration for providing advice and other services to the plaintiffs in the ten different actions, there is evidence that he has solicited financial donations from members of the public to fund litigation of this nature.

Walter v Mackay Regional Council [2015] FCCA 351 7 was regarding costs in previous litigation involving William Alexander Lade. Mr Lade as plaintiff had sued both the Respondent in this matter and the State Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Partnerships, where North J. made an order that both Mr Lade and Mr Walter, as a non-party to the matter, be liable for the costs of the Mackay Regional Council, which resulted in a sequestration order under s.43 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Mr Walter appealed the making of that order to this Court, but did not present any evidence regarding the actual bankruptcy, but instead filed five separate books of “submissions” that cast doubt upon the fact that a Court could allow sequestration or the authority of the Supreme Court or any other entity to take money that has not been money as described under the Constitution namely pounds, shillings and pence.

In May 2017 David John Walter spent a month in Lotus Glen prison after he was jailed for contempt 8 and allegedly assaulting two police officers at a bankruptcy hearing at Cairns Magistrates Court, a charge which was later withdrawn. After his many erroneous submissions, Magistrate Bentley ordered he undergo a mental assessment, which concluded that Walter was legally competent but held some “idiosyncratic views regarding several judgments from higher courts.”

4lmy423z14s11

David Walter ran the same arguments in Walter v Premier of Queensland [2018] QSC 237 9 where he sued Annastacia Palaszczuc MP and demanded the court “immediately forward this file to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia”. The alleged purpose is for the Chief Justice to in turn put a series of questions to Her Majesty the Queen and, when they are answered, convene a sitting of the High Court which the plaintiff can attend, so as to request that orders be made of the Queen, depending on her answers. The court noted that:

“Mr Walter appears to have a concerning history of repeat involvement in litigation for others, espousing what were described as “peculiar” and “mistaken” notions of the law in Legal Services Commissioner v Walter [2011] QSC 132. .. The statement of claim is incoherent. It is a rambling mixture of assertions which are literally and legally insensible and purported quotes of legislation, proceedings and other publications. Some of what is pleaded seems to go to whether our system of government is lawful but the link between that existential debate and a legitimate cause of action is not apparent.”

David Walters had a interview with media outside the court while on recess: 10

Share this: