Appeal: Pending [2025] FCR 78 - Appeal

[End]

Username: xEndeavour

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: Commonwealth

File(s) attached

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 78

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Galactic Empire of Redmont v. Department of construction and transportation [2025] FCR 78

Basis for Appeal: Error of Law - Misapplication of Res Judica

Res judicata applies only where the same cause of action is litigated under substantially the same law. The 2025 policy introduced new definitions of 'basic materials' and expressly included quartz as a limited block, thereby creating a materially different regulatory framework (the inclusion of a new material in the definition of basic materials). By disregarding these substantive changes, the Court improperly extended res judicata beyond its settled scope (which was that this material was not reasonably assumed to be a basic material).

The DCT reported this plot years ago for using just quartz as a basic block. The court ruled that quartz could not be reasonably be assumed as a basic block. As such, the DCT updated it's policy to expressly provide that quartz was a basic block. This is applied equally to all people being reported for the same reason. The plots were re-reported for the same reason, with policy changes made in accordance with the court verdict on quartz now included expressly in the definition. The court ruled that this was targeted, when the DCT's position has been unchanged for years and that the necessary policy changes and warning was provided.

Courts may review constitutionality and legality, but they cannot strike down policies merely on suspicions of motive unless it violates a constitutional or statutory law. That oversteps judicial review. This change is broad, is a long-standing position of the DCT, and applies equally to every citizen.

The court erred in law by applying res judicata where it acknowledged that there was a material change to policy.

Error of Law: Misapplication of the Constitutional Test for Freedom of Political Communication

The Court erred by applying a heightened standard of review to regulations affecting political communication. The correct test is whether the regulation is reasonably appropriate to serve a legitimate governmental purpose. Instead, the Court introduced a novel requirement of 'objective clarity' and invalidated the 'eyesore' provisions on grounds of vagueness. This constitutes a departure from the DCTs ability to regulate and expands constitutional protection beyond precedent. In fact, it inhibits the DCT to carry out it's core constitutional and statutory functions of administration and infrastructure regulation.


Jurisdictional Error: Improper Invalidation of Administrative Policy

The Court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the 'eyesore' policy invalid on the basis of subjectivity. The Property Standards Act confers on the DCT express authority to define eviction criteria. Administrative regulations of this character are not subject to judicial invalidation merely for being broad or discretionary. The Court thereby intruded into the legislative and executive jurisdiction.

It effectively elevates political builds into a special category where subjective standards, which are supported by policy, won’t survive review if they are an eyesore. This is a free ticket to build a dirt shack which breaks regulations and then to tie it to a political party to prevent eviction. We now can't regulate any political building for eyesore.

There is a practical necessity for there to have discretion or subjectivity in the application of policy:

1. No statute or regulation can anticipate every possible situation.
2. The eviction policy sets out a set of broad principles which are reviewed by a number of individuals before any adverse action is taken for breaching them.
3. Discretion avoids overregulation and keeps the system manageable. Strict rules would require endless, hyper-specific regulations (e.g. banning each possible eyesore block type or design).
4. It encourages creativity.
5. Applying judgment on a case-by-case basis ensures that unique factors are taken into account.
6. Courts generally recognise that some degree of subjectivity is inevitable and lawful in such delegated powers.
7. The DCT is given broad regulatory power. There must be an expectation that we, as administrators, need to exercise judgment.


Relief Granted Ultra Vires

The Court erred in law by directing the Department to revise its policies to include 'clear, objective, and neutrally applicable standards.' Judicial review permits a court to strike down unlawful provisions, but it does not empower the judiciary to prescribe the content of future regulations. This order exceeds the proper limits of judicial relief and constitutes an impermissible intrusion into executive policymaking.

Courts can quash unlawful provisions, but they cannot draft or compel drafting of executive policy. That is a textbook breach of separation of powers.


In General

The court's role in executive policy making is to interpret policy and process. In this case, they have overstepped in overturning legal, long-standing executive policy and then directing updates to policy.

The reported plots are part of approximately 1000 reports made over the past several months. The court incorrectly ruled that it was targeted.

Aesthetic standards are inherently subjective - zoning, planning, and our heritage laws/policy often use terms like 'in character' or 'reasonable.' These terms cannot reasonably be objective.

The Department has consistently applied its policies with fairness, restraint, and reason. The verdict under appeal does not reflect those same principles. Instead, it creates a precedent that is inconsistent with law and inhibits our ability to regulate.


Prayer for Relief

1. Appeal Granted

2. Federal Court verdict vacated

Supporting Evidence: 1. Constitution
2. Property Standards Act

 

[CoolChacha97]

Your honor,
As a lawyer who worked on the case for the plaintiff and am no longer employed by MZLD I would like to file an amicus brief with the court relating to the following facts
1. The DCT's addition of quartz into the building policy
2. How the relationship between the judiciary and the DCT works
3. How res judicata works with DCT policy and law
I would also like to include in the amicus brief my general thoughts and opinions on the case

 

[End]

Your honor,
As a lawyer who worked on the case for the plaintiff and am no longer employed by MZLD I would like to file an amicus brief with the court relating to the following facts
1. The DCT's addition of quartz into the building policy
2. How the relationship between the judiciary and the DCT works
3. How res judicata works with DCT policy and law
I would also like to include in the amicus brief my general thoughts and opinions on the case

Your honour,

1. Amicus briefs are statements of fact, not opinion on interpretation in Redmont.

2. Appeals aren’t adversarial in Redmont, they are a claim to an error of law and a singular submission.

 

[lucaaaaMC]

Free Yeet

 

[Aladeen]

In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to grant this appeal.

The Appellant, has seventy-two hours to post their Appellant Brief.

Apologies for not posting this on the forums as well.

 

[End]

In a 2-0 decision, the Supreme Court has decided to grant this appeal.

The Appellant, has seventy-two hours to post their Appellant Brief.

Apologies for not posting this on the forums as well.

Is there a procedure for this? This is new.

 

[Aladeen]

Is there a procedure for this? This is new.

Yes there is, you can find it here

Information Thread 'Appealing a Federal Court Decision'

Jun 10, 2021

INTRODUCTION

After a court case has been decided in favor of one party in the Federal Court, the losing party may decide that they would like to appeal the court's decision within one month. If an appeal is accepted, the case will be heard by the Supreme Court, where the verdict may or may not be overturned. In the event that the verdict is overturned, appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that the compensatory actions of the original verdict are overturned or that new compensatory actions are issued. The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal, and...

• Courts
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Appeals

 

[End]

Opening Statement

The Commonwealth appeals the judgment of the Federal Court invalidating key provisions of DCT’s eviction policy, vacating the DCT's eviction notices on the GER's plots, and issuing direction to the DCT to revise its policy.

The Commonwealth provides that the verdict should be set aside noting the following errors, and asks the court to consider the listed issues.

COURT ERRORS

Error of Law - Misapplication of Res Judica

Res judicata applies only where the same cause of action is litigated under substantially the same law. The 2025 policy introduced new definitions of 'basic materials' and expressly included quartz as a limited block, thereby creating a materially different regulatory framework (the inclusion of a new material in the definition of basic materials). By disregarding these substantive changes, the Court improperly extended res judicata beyond its settled scope (which was that this material was not reasonably assumed to be a basic material).

The DCT reported this plot years ago for using just quartz as a basic block. The court ruled that quartz could not be reasonably be assumed as a basic block. As such, the DCT updated it's policy to expressly provide that quartz was a basic block. This is applied equally to all people being reported for the same reason. The plots were re-reported for the same reason, with policy changes made in accordance with the court verdict on quartz now included expressly in the definition. The court ruled that this was targeted, when the DCT's position has been unchanged for years and that the necessary policy changes and warning was provided.

Courts may review constitutionality and legality, but they cannot strike down policies merely on suspicions of motive unless it violates a constitutional or statutory law. That oversteps judicial review. This change is broad, is a long-standing position of the DCT, and applies equally to every citizen.

The court erred in law by applying res judicata where it acknowledged that there was a material change to policy.

Issue 1: Whether the lower court erred in applying res judicata to bar reconsideration of DCT’s policy on quartz when DCT had materially amended its policy definition of 'basic materials' to expressly include quartz, following Galactic Empire of Redmont v Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 27.

Error of Law: Misapplication of the Constitutional Test for Freedom of Political Communication

The Court erred by applying a heightened standard of review to regulations affecting political communication. The correct test is whether the regulation is reasonably appropriate to serve a legitimate governmental purpose. Instead, the Court introduced a novel requirement of 'objective clarity' and invalidated the 'eyesore' provisions on grounds of vagueness. This constitutes a departure from the DCTs ability to regulate and expands constitutional protection beyond precedent. In fact, it inhibits the DCT to carry out it's core constitutional and statutory functions of administration and infrastructure regulation.

In doing so, the court has inferred that the DCT targeted the GER on political grounds. The reality is that the GER's plots were reported in accordance with policy, along with 100s of plots throughout this administration. All plots were given extensive feedback and generous timelines to be able to correct the faults, well beyond normal timelines.

Issue 2: Whether the court misapplied the constitutional test for freedom of political communication by ruling that the DCT cannot evict based on subjective standards for political buildings.

Issue 3: Whether the Court erred in concluding that the reported plots were targeted, when they were part of a large number of enforcement actions (approximately 1,000 reports) applied consistently over several months.

Issue 4: Whether the Court erred in concluding that the reported plots were targeted, when the GER was given ample opportunity and feedback to rectify the issues, well beyond normal timelines and advice provided.

Issue 5: Whether the Court’s invalidation of subjective standards in the eyesore policy effectively creates anomalous protection for politically-affiliated structures, undermining the DCT’s ability to enforce regulations uniformly.

Jurisdictional Error: Improper Invalidation of Administrative Policy

The Court exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring the 'eyesore' policy invalid on the basis of subjectivity. The Property Standards Act confers on the DCT express authority to define eviction criteria. Administrative regulations of this character are not subject to judicial invalidation merely for being broad or discretionary. The Court thereby intruded into the legislative and executive jurisdiction.

It effectively elevates political builds into a special category where subjective standards, which are supported by policy, won’t survive review if they are an eyesore. This is a free ticket to build a dirt shack which breaks regulations and then to tie it to a political party to prevent eviction. We now can't regulate any political building for eyesore.

There is a practical necessity for there to have discretion or subjectivity in the application of policy:

1. No statute or regulation can anticipate every possible situation.
2. The eviction policy sets out a set of broad principles which are reviewed by a number of individuals before any adverse action is taken for breaching them.
3. Discretion avoids overregulation and keeps the system manageable. Strict rules would require endless, hyper-specific regulations (e.g. banning each possible eyesore block type or design).
4. It encourages creativity.
5. Applying judgment on a case-by-case basis ensures that unique factors are taken into account.
6. Courts generally recognise that some degree of subjectivity is inevitable and lawful in such delegated powers.
7. The DCT is given broad regulatory power. There must be an expectation that we, as administrators, need to exercise judgment.

Issue 6: Whether the exercise of professional judgment and discretionary authority by the DCT in applying broad eviction standards is lawful and necessary to achieve practical, fair, and manageable enforcement.

Issue 7: Whether aesthetic can be measured absolutely objectively, without any level of professional judgement, and in a standard form policy applicable to all properties and circumstances.

Relief Granted Ultra Vires

The Court erred in law by directing the Department to revise its policies to include 'clear, objective, and neutrally applicable standards.' Judicial review permits a court to strike down unlawful provisions, but it does not empower the judiciary to prescribe the content of future regulations. This order exceeds the proper limits of judicial relief and constitutes an impermissible intrusion into executive policymaking.

Courts can quash unlawful provisions, but they cannot draft or compel drafting of executive policy. That is a textbook breach of separation of powers.

Issue 8: Whether the Court erred by directing the DCT to revise its policies to include 'clear, objective, and neutrally applicable standards,' thereby exceeding the proper limits of judicial relief and impermissibly intruding into executive policymaking.

Issue 9: Whether the Court exceeded its proper role by overturning long-standing executive policy and directing the DCT to revise it, rather than limiting its judgment to interpreting and reviewing the lawful application of that policy.

In General

The court's role in executive policy making is to interpret policy and process. In this case, they have overstepped in overturning legal, long-standing executive policy and then directing updates to policy.

The reported plots are part of approximately 1000 reports made over the past several months. The court incorrectly ruled that it was targeted.

Aesthetic standards are inherently subjective - zoning, planning, and our heritage laws/policy often use terms like 'in character' or 'reasonable.' These terms cannot reasonably be objective.

The Department has consistently applied its policies with fairness, restraint, and reason. The verdict under appeal does not reflect those same principles. Instead, it creates a precedent that is inconsistent with law and inhibits our ability to regulate.

Issue 10: Whether the Court’s verdict under appeal improperly establishes a precedent inconsistent with law, undermining the DCT’s ability to administer its policies fairly, reasonably, and with appropriate discretion.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Appeal Granted

2. Federal Court verdict vacated.

In these circumstances, the DCT will not immediately evict the properties, rather, the GER will be given a further 7 day deferral from the vacation to rectify the outstanding reports.

Further, the DCT will afford a single free paste should the GER wish to replace any one of the evicted buildings.

The DCT is not here to target any individual or entity. The DCT serves to perform it's constitutional function and it has done routinely over 100s of reports in the past term. The DCT has afforded the GER an exceptional level of grace to resolve their reports, to which would not normally be afforded to a regular player. The DCT recognises the importance of these buildings to the organisation, but also has legal requirement to improve aesthetic and enforce non-compliance.

 

[Aladeen]

The Appellee will have 72 hours to present their brief.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

The Appellee will have 72 hours to present their brief.

The appellee's counsel respectfully requests a 42-hour extension on this. I will be traveling over the weekend and will be presiding over an in-game House session tomorrow, and I worry that I may not have time to provide this reply.

 

[Aladeen]

Extension granted.