A WOMAN badged 'something of a vigilante neighbourhood activist' who is fighting the State of NSW over two parking fines issued in Belmont in 2021 has been given one more chance to show up in court.
Eedra Zey, previously known in court under the pseudonym Eva Williams, alleges police committed acts of trespass, assault, breach of privacy, and misfeasance of public office, and is seeking compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages in the civil district court.
The parking fines, issued on September 17 and 21, 2021, related to where her car was parked, allegedly blocking traffic. During the course of their official duties, police attended a house at Belmont where they tried to speak to Ms Zey about the car, court documents say.
The case went to trial in Newcastle over five days between February 26 and March 1, 2024, but remained part-heard and unconcluded, as Ms Zey failed to turn up to complete the hearing on March 1, 7, 15 and 22.
Repeated no-show
She had either abandoned the case, or was not capable of finishing it, according to Acting District Court Judge Leonard Levy SC in a decision handed down April 26.
But she had also, "without reasonable explanation", failed to present for a psychiatric assessment, despite a court order.
Representing herself, Ms Zey appeared on the evidence to be "something of a vigilante neighbourhood activist concerning heavy vehicular traffic" in her area since July 31, 2023, the judge said.
While she claimed to have pre-existing PTSD, the court could not deal with her in a trauma informed way without some medical opinion evidence about the origin and effects of her PTSD.
Ms Zey had most recently filed a notice of motion along with an affidavit claiming a denial of natural justice, an outline of the obligations of model litigants, an allegation of judicial interference and alleged pre-judgement, and an application for a stay of proceedings.
In submissions made on April 25, Ms Zey "obscurely claims" that in her present state of health she had "yelled at [her] perfect and beautiful cat .. tali quails (sic for 'qualis)], Judge Levy said in his decision.
A fair go
In his view, Ms Zey had been afforded "considerable procedural leeway" for the presentation of her case, he said.
The matter was heard in Newcastle, where ordinarily it would have been heard in Sydney, and she had been allowed to give her evidence in chief in a narrative form, and was given leave to refer to her notes while giving evidence.
She was not, however, permitted to read her evidence from a prepared statement onto the record at which point she took time out of court to see her doctor, and had since failed to re-engage with the litigation.
In an affidavit filed on April 24, Ms Zey said she had medically diagnosed mental health issues and that events had triggered her, and she had become unwell.
Doctor Erica Rowley's letter to the court said Ms Zey had reported being triggered by questions put to her in court that she did not think were relevant to the litigation, thereby allegedly causing re-traumatisation, but that was contrary to the court's rulings which were made on those issues at the time they were raised in court by Ms Zey, Judge Levy said.
To date, the court had not received an adequate or satisfactory explanation as to why she could not complete her evidence.
Pseudonym thrown out
Judge Levy said that previously Ms Zey had been allowed to use the litigation pseudonym of Eva Williams, but there was a fundamental tension and inconsistency between her apparent pursuit of an agenda of public social activism, as well as seeking to maintain her anonymity.
Ms Zey had demonstrated considerable knowledge of the law, legal processes and legal procedures, with a history apparently including "a number of litigious disputes", Judge Levy said.
She owned property, held advanced tertiary degrees, and was well aware of the issues calling for a decision in the case, and any further delay or stay in the proceedings would unduly delay the finalisation of what was a "needlessly protracted case", the judge said.
The non-publication and pseudonym orders previously made were revoked, her notice of motion dismissed, and she was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on the dismissed motion.
The matter is next due before the court on May 17, on which day Ms Zey may appear via AVL.
