Anthony William Evans stands out as a prominent adherent of the unilateral foisted contract theory, among other commercial aspects such as promissory notes and commercial liens.
In Re Glenevan Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 201 the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation sought an order that the defendant company Glenevan Pty Limited be wound up in insolvency and a liquidator appointed. In support of its grounds of opposition, the defendant filed a document entitled “Affidavit/Commercial Lien” sworn by its director, Anthony William Evans. The court noted the “document of some 15 pages comprises largely spurious legal nonsense.” The defendant contended the Letters Patent issued under the great seal of Australia by the Queen appointing the Governor-General in Australia were issued incorrectly, citing Fitzgibbon v HM Attorney General [2005] EWHC 114 (Ch) in the UK High Court. The court held that the judgment provides no defence of the order, and that the commercial lien was invalid. (from 20):
“The repeated proposition that the affidavit, being unrefuted, “stood as law and fact” is nonsense. Unrebutted affidavits do not necessarily conclusively establish the facts deposed to in them. They are evidence of facts. They do not establish them conclusively. Even less do they establish law. The idea that somehow by serving the so-called commercial lien on the Deputy Commissioner or anyone else those parties become bound by it is equally nonsense. Mere receipt or notice of a document does not mean that the recipient acknowledges, accepts or becomes bound by it. In the course of legal proceedings, parties are served with statements of claim and affidavits on a regular basis. The receipt of those documents does not of itself mean that the party is bound by or party to it, any more than receipt of a letter by an addressee means the party accepts its truth or becomes bound by it.”
ANZ provided various facilities to Glenevan Pty Ltd, a company of which Mr and Mrs Evans were the sole directors. The facilities were secured by guarantees given Mr and Mrs Evans and mortgages over three properties and two vehicles. In February 2015, the company was placed into liquidation, resulting in an event of default occurring. ANZ subsequently issued demands to Mr and Mrs Evans and commenced proceedings for debt and possession of the properties and vehicles. Mr and Mrs Evans alleged that they had repaid a debt owed by them to ANZ by way of a Promissory Note, and further alleged that as ANZ failed to accept the Promissory Note, ANZ owed them more than $7,000,000. In Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Evans; Evans v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1742 the Supreme Court of New South Wales thought it appropriate to strike out or summarily dismiss the pleadings. Mr Evans asserted that a number of constitutional matters arose from the proceedings and that the court could not proceed to hear and dispose of the Notices of Motion. The alleged constitutional issues were that “The Gunditjmara sovereign people have absolute ownership and title over the aforesaid subject land to the exclusion of all others including the Crown, in all its capacities and guises”, challenges to the jurisdiction and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret and make decisions of fact and law concerning the Bills of Exchange Act 1909, and whether the Supreme Court of NSW is a properly constituted court. The court was not satisfied that these matters precluded the court from proceeding. (at 53 and 154):
“It is illogical and incorrect as a matter of legal principle to take the statement that a promissory note “is to be treated as cash” out of the context in which it appeared, and apply it, as Mr Evans seeks to do here, in circumstances where Mr Evans creates a promissory note, which is not drawn on any reputable or substantial financial institution, and which is not a recognised form of payment under the loan documentation, and then proffers it entirely voluntarily in circumstances where the ANZ is required to attend at a remote rural village, at a specific time, in order to collect payment. Mr Evans’ assertion that, in those circumstances, he is excused from repaying his substantial liability to ANZ is, simply put, a nonsense. .. Here there is no doubt that ANZ received the promissory notes and did not return them within the specified three days. Silence or inaction on the part of a party cannot, where no consideration passes, transform a unilateral demand into a contract. Even less can it constitute a breach of some self-invented contract by Mr Evans. .. The entirety of the Statement of Claim in the Evans proceedings is based on an irrational and legally untenable premise. The irrational premise is that a person or party can unilaterally impose a contract upon one or more other parties by producing a five page written document, full of gibberish and legal nonsense, sending it to the other party or parties and then asserting that when the recipients ignore the document, they fall to be bound by its terms.”
Snowy Valleys Council v Anthony William Evans & Anor [2021] NSWSC 428
Snowy Valleys Council v Evans & Anor (No. 2) [2021] NSWSC 711
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Evans [2023] NSWSC 1018
