Cuffs cause a stir

I didn’t know anyone actually wore cuff links anymore. But I guess if you do you would tend to be a little compulsive.
Not that I want to malign Clayton Croker who spent 50 bucks on a pair of ‘commemorative High Court of Australia’ cufflinks, believing they were a "bargain".
Croker said he bought the gold-plated cufflinks from the High Court's Canberra registry in November 2003.
After 100 years of judicial leadership of the High Court, I thought it might be a good idea to have them as sentimental value," he said. By last August, though, the cufflinks were looking shabby.
He complained to the vendor, The High Court of Australia, and was given a replacement pair, but they also tarnished.
We’ve already suggested the man might have a slight compulsive disorder. After having his claim thrown out by Commonwealth to the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW he took his case to the NSW Supreme Court.
It was in this august body Associate Justice Bryan Malpass said: "The plaintiff has brought numerous proceedings, both in this court and elsewhere. Despite his lack of success, he is yet to be declared a vexatious litigant."
So it is no real surprise that the court threw this case out, stipulating strict appeal guidelines.
If Croker wants to take his case further, he will have to apply for special leave to appeal to the NSW Court of Appeal, as his claim is for less than $100,000

To be fair and taking account of Croker’s penchant for cuff links and past court record, he does have an issue here.
His point is:

"I see there's a legal issue here - when you get involved in contracts with the Commonwealth, a lot of the time the Commonwealth claims immunity," he said.
"I think it's a public interest matter. I think it should be pursued through the courts."

President of the NSW Law Society, John McIntyre, said it was unlikely that leave would be granted. "The decision of the Supreme Court would not be … a surprise to anyone who has dealt with consumer law before," he said. "If it was a gift shop owned by a separate trader then it would be an entirely different situation.

"Governments get to make the laws and so governments get to exempt themselves from the application of their laws."

The fact that it happens does not make it right. Australia has an appalling record for legislating what would be classed as corruption in any other sector.
I really don’t see Croker having much hope with his claim, but more power to him for binging out the truth about the Australian Government’s approach to legal ethics.