I posted this once before, it was so classic I'm reposting it
I wonder how it would work if brought before a judge.
CITATION: DAWKINS & 2 Ors v GOD & 3 Ors [2007] NSWSC 666
HEARING DATE(S) : 06/06/07
JUDGMENT DATE : 06 June 2007
JURISDICTION : Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF : Justice J
DECISION : Originating process dismissed. Plaintiffs to pay defendant's costs.
CATCHWORDS : INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS - burden of proof - whether onus lies on plaintiffs
PARTIES:
Dr. Richard Dawkins - First Plaintiff
Some Scientists - Second Plaintiff
Hardcore Atheists - Third Plaintiff
God - First Defendant
Allah - Second Defendant
Buddah - Third Defendant
Zeus - Fourth Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3566/06
SOLICITORS : Solicitors-R-Us - Plaintiffs
Nick Enterprises - Defendants
1. This is an application for an interlocutory injuction brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants, seeking, inter alia,
- a declaration that the defendants do not exist, or, should that not succeed,
- orders that the defendants cease existing.
2. It is unnecessary at this point to consider the long and bitter history between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Needless to say, there have been numerous differences of opinion between the plaintiffs and the defendants, inter alia on the question of the existance of the defendants.
3. In deciding whether to grant an interlocutory injunction, the court must be satisfied that there is a serious case to be tried. In Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148, Mason ACJ stated:
"In order to secure such an injunction the plaintiff must show (1) that there is a serious question to be tried or that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is there is a probability that at the trial of the action the plaintiff will be held entitled to relief; (2) that he will suffer irreparable injury for which damages will not be an adequate compensation unless an injunction is granted; and (3) that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction."
4. The onus is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that there is a serious case to be tried. In these present proceedings, the plaintiffs must prove to the court that there is at least a question as to the existance or non existance of the defendants.
5. Unfortunately neither the plaintiff's nor the defendant's counsel were particularly helpful. Counsel for the plaintiffs refused to adduce any evidence that might show that the defendants do not exist. In turn, Mr Nick 2 for the defendants, after submitting that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs, proceeded to amuse the court by performing a 'mock judgement' rendition of where the burden of proof would lie should this case ever be taken to court.
6. I rule that Mr Nick 2's judgement writing style looks nothing like mine.
7. Unfortunately the defendants were not able to attend the trial. Plaintiff's counsel submitted that the non attendance of the defendants should be taken as evidence that the defendants do not exist. Unfortunately, this is not sufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion. Perhaps the defendants had better things to do than come to court to establish that they exist.
8. Counsel for the defendants produced two sworn affidavats on behalf of the first and second defendants. Whilst they were sworn almost two thousand years ago, once again counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the admission of the affidavits into evidence, but offered no reason or explanation to the objection.
9. I find that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to demonstrate that there is a serious question as to whether the defendants exist. Therefore there is no need to address the questions of remedy and balance of convenience.
10. This application is dismissed. The plaintiffs will pay the defendants' costs of these interlocutory proceedings.
11. I also rule that Nick 2 is the bomb.
