Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[glenb]

Why would a CASA employee mislead the Ombudsman's Office?

Why would a CASA employee try and mislead the Ombudsman’s office to believe that CASA were not fully aware of the structure of my business?

First its worth having an appreciation of what constitutes a negligent misstatement. I was directed to this by a learned Ppruner some time ago This information was exceptional and provided me with direction.

A negligent misstatement is a claim which is brought by one party against another at common law in tort. This claim arises if the party (CASA) against whom the claim is brought made a statement which was considered to be negligent (Defendant) and the party bringing the claim (Claimant) relied on this statement to its detriment and suffered a loss as a result of this statement.

In order for a claim for negligent misstatement to succeed the Claimant must be able to show to the court that on a balance of probabilities the Defendant owed them a duty of care. This duty of care is not to cause such harm which was suffered by their negligent misstatement, further that they breached the duty of care owed and that the Claimant has indeed suffered loss.

If the Claimant cannot satisfy the aforementioned then they will not have a claim for Negligent Misstatement.

It would very much suit the Manager of CASAs Legal department, if my business was something that I just went off and did with little or no CASA involvement. If that were the case I would have to just roll over and let him move on to the next person that upsets him.

Basically, I need to demonstrate that CASA was aware of, and involved in the design of my business. As they clearly were. In fact, all schools in Australia were not permitted to operate after September 2016, if they did not go through a full revalidation as a Part 141 and 142. Recall that I was delivering this multi base structure for six years prior.

As part of that revalidation, we redesigned every element of the business including personnel, infrastructure, and our manuals and procedures. It was a very large project, in fact the cost of the Transition exceeded the Companies entire profit over the last decade. For Mr Jonathan Aleck to be involved in leading the Ombudsman to be of the view that CASA was not aware of my business structure, is blatantly a lie, perpetrated to “water down” my options.

At the right time, it will be proven beyond any doubt. At this stage and before proceeding, I anxiously await the Ombudsman’s findings. I need to know whether my resources are being allocated to a fair fight, which would be far more efficient, or whether I need to allocate more resources to exposing the entire matter.

My belief is that under a new Minister, a new Board Chair, and a new CEO, a new level of ethics and integrity will be bought to the matter.

I understand why CASA would perhaps lead the Ombudsman's office to be of the view that they were not aware of what i was doing although the correspondence in Post 1814, should go part way to expose CASAs lack of ethics and integrity.

Watch this space, aiming for a few posts.

I might just add that i was contacted by a past very senior CASA Executive who has also come forward and offered to tell the truth to the Ombudsman. Its interesting that the Ombudsman chooses not to take advantage of it. This experience of the last three years has certainly taught me the additional weighting put to CASAs input in such matters. The individual is certainly on the back foot. Lucky I am so stubborn, buoyed by widespread industry support.

Cheers folks. I know that this forum is being followed, so I appreciate all the input including the criticisms, cheers. Glen.