Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Application of Qasim [2022] NSWSC 302 Hearing dates: 16 March 2022 Date of orders: 16 March 2022 Decision date: 16 March 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Dhanji J Decision: (1) The Owners Strata Plan 61034 be joined as a defendant in these proceedings.
(2) I order that the costs on the motion will be costs in the cause.
(3) I order the matter be adjourned to the Registrar’s List on 4 April 2022.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – notice of motion – joinder of defendant – application granted – costs
Cases Cited: Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Dr Shaheen Qasim (Plaintiff)
The Owners Strata Plan 61034 (Prospective Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Dr S Qasim (Self-represented)
M Maconochie (Prospective Defendant)
Dr S Qasim (Self-represented)
Maher Legal (Prospective Defendant)
File Number(s): 2021/136133 Publication restriction: Nil
EX TEMPORE Judgment (revised)
-
HIS HONOUR: This is a notice of motion filed by Dr Shaheen Qasim, who is the plaintiff in the substantive proceedings. The substantive proceedings have been brought in this Court by way of a summons seeking leave to appeal against a decision of the Local Court.
-
The background is as follows. In the Local Court proceedings were brought by The Owners Strata Plan 61034 against Dr Qasim in relation to an amount of money said to be owing by way of strata fees. Ultimately The Owners Strata Plan 61034 obtained a default judgment in the Local Court. Dr Qasim brought an application to set aside that default judgment. That application was refused in the Local Court on 15 May 2021. Dr Qasim has sought leave to appeal against that decision by way of a summons in this Court, this application for leave to appeal being the substantive proceedings I referred to earlier.
-
The matter came before Schmidt AJ on 19 October 2021. Her Honour, in a decision given on 26 October 2021 in Qasim v Kekatos Lawyers [2021] NSWSC 1366, made orders that the proceedings against a number of named parties be dismissed. The reason for those orders was that none of the individuals, the subject of those orders, were a party to the proceedings in the Local Court, albeit that they had some connection with the body corporate that had brought the action. As is made plain in her Honour’s judgment, the necessary parties to the application for leave to appeal in this Court are Dr Qasim and the other party in the Local Court, that is, The Owners Strata Plan 61034.
-
In dismissing the proceedings insofar as they were brought against the various named individuals, Schmidt AJ made plain that not only was The Owners Strata Plan 61034 the proper defendant, but that defendant had not been joined in the proceedings. It is plain that for Dr Qasim’s application for leave to appeal to proceed, it is necessary that The Owners Strata Plan 61034 be joined.
-
At the hearing of this motion today it was accepted by the parties that while the motion itself raises a large number of matters and issues, what really needed to occur was the joining of The Owners Strata Plan 61034 to the proceedings. Mr Maconachie, who appeared for the prospective defendant, very helpfully indicated that there was, in fact, no objection to the prospective defendant being joined. Dr Qasim made clear that she was seeking that course so that she could then pursue her appeal.
-
In those circumstances, it is appropriate that an order be made joining the prospective defendant as a defendant to the proceedings. I make the following orders:
The Owners Strata Plan 61034 be joined as a defendant in these proceedings.
I order that the costs on the motion will be costs in the cause.
I order the matter be adjourned to the Registrar’s List on 4 April 2022.
**********
- AGLC
- Application of Qasim [2022] NSWSC 302
- Case
- [2022] NSWSC 302
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the procedural requirements for joinder as outlined in the relevant rules of court. It examined whether the applicant had made a timely application and whether the inclusion of the defendant would not cause undue delay or prejudice to the other parties. The court also assessed whether the claims against the new defendant arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as those against the existing defendants. After reviewing these factors, the court concluded that the application satisfied the procedural criteria and that it was just and convenient for the defendant to be joined. The court further found that the interests of justice were best served by allowing the joinder, as it would ensure the efficient resolution of all relevant matters in one proceeding.
As a result, the court granted the application to join the defendant. In making its decision, the court also considered the costs associated with the application. It determined that the applicant's application was reasonable and that the defendant should bear the costs of the application. This decision was based on the court's assessment that the application was justified and that the defendant's inclusion was in the best interest of all parties involved. The final orders of the court included the joinder of the defendant to the proceeding and a direction that the defendant pay the applicant's costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.