Application by Mohammad Tabibar Rahman - [2015] NSWSC 164

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Application by Mohammad Tabibar Rahman [2015] NSWSC 164
Hearing dates: On the papers
Date of orders: 13 March 2015
Decision date: 13 March 2015
Before: Garling J
Decision:
The application for leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, contained in the Summons filed 18 December 2014, is dismissed.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 – application for leave to institute proceedings – supporting affidavit not compliant – no draft pleading – proceedings vexatious – no prima facie ground for proceedings – applicant subject of sequestration order under Bankruptcy Act - applicant not entitled to commence proceedings without consent of Trustee in bankruptcy - application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008
Cases Cited: Application by Michael Bar-Mordecai [2012] NSWSC 501
Texts Cited: Not applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mohammad Tabibar Rahman (Applicant)
Representation: M Rahman (Self Represented)

File Number(s): 2014/371482
Publication restriction: Not applicable

___________________________________________________________________

Judgment

These Proceedings

On 18 December 2014, Mohammad Tabibar Rahman filed a Summons in which he claimed a grant of leave to commence proceedings against 15 named defendants. In that Summons, he described the type of claim in the following way:

“Administrative law (inherent power of court [individual rights and financial rights]), real property – freehold title [transfer of propriety rights], jurisdiction of federal courts, charge of crimes against the defendants – incohort [white collar economic offenders] …”

So far as can be ascertained, Mr Rahman seeks an exercise of the Court’s powers to order judicial review, grant prerogative relief generally and grant specific relief in the nature of various writs. As well, Mr Rahman seeks that the Court reverse certain actions of the Land Titles Office and grant “orders for relief” purportedly under the Crimes Act 1900.
Mr Rahman also claims damages of $1.7M, and “… further orders for fixed amounts of compensations of damages …”. In addition, he seeks a fixed amount of compensatory costs of $1.95M and some relief with respect to bankruptcy proceedings.
In support of that Summons, Mr Rahman has filed a lengthy affidavit sworn on 18 December 2014.
On 30 January 2015, Mr Rahman filed a Notice of Motion seeking to add four further defendants to the proceedings. Mr Rahman has also filed and served a Notice of a Constitutional Matter under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and submissions with respect to that Notice.
It does appear that the Notice and these submissions, filed 22 December 2014, have been provided to the Attorneys General of each State and Territory, the Shadow Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, the Attorney-General of the United States of America and the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom. Service of the Notice on the last three office holders is not provided for in the Judiciary Act.

Vexatious Litigant

The applicant, Mr Rahman, is a vexatious litigant.
On 10 February 2014, Adams J…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Application by Mohammad Tabibar Rahman

Details

AGLC: Pahuja v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 164
Case: [2015] NSWSC 164
Decision Date: 13 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Mohammad Tabibar Rahman for leave to institute proceedings, which was dismissed. Rahman sought leave under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, however, the supporting affidavit provided was not compliant with the requirements of the Act. Specifically, it lacked a draft pleading which is a necessary component of the application for leave. The court found the proceedings to be vexatious as there was no prima facie ground for the proceedings. Additionally, Rahman was subject to a sequestration order under the Bankruptcy Act, which required him to obtain the consent of his Trustee in Bankruptcy to commence proceedings. Given these factors, the court held that Rahman was not entitled to proceed with his application without the necessary consent.

The court identified two main legal issues in the case. Firstly, whether the application for leave was compliant with the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008. The court determined that the lack of a draft pleading rendered the application non-compliant. Secondly, the court considered whether Rahman, as a bankrupt, was entitled to institute the proceedings without the consent of his Trustee in Bankruptcy. The court concluded that Rahman had not satisfied the necessary conditions under the Bankruptcy Act to proceed without consent, thereby dismissing the application.

In dismissing the application, the court noted that the absence of a draft pleading made it impossible to assess the merits of the proposed proceedings. Furthermore, the court emphasised the importance of compliance with statutory requirements when seeking leave under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008. The court also highlighted the statutory obligations of a bankrupt, such as the need to obtain consent from the Trustee in Bankruptcy before taking legal action. Given these findings, the court determined that Rahman's application did not meet the statutory criteria for leave and was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to institute proceedings was dismissed. The court also noted that Rahman's failure to comply with the requirements of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 and the Bankruptcy Act precluded him from proceeding with his application. No further orders were made regarding costs or any other aspect of the proceedings.

Orders