Baid v Agrawal - [2022] VSC 87

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2021 00382

SAURABH BAID	Plaintiff
v
SONU AGRAWAL	First defendant
JUDGE LAURISTEN, COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Second defendant

---

JUDGE:	Irving AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 October 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 February 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Baid v Agrawal & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 87

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Application for judicial review of County Court judge’s order granting final personal safety intervention order in appeal from order made by magistrate pursuant to Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 – ss 5-10, 47, 61, 97 - Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak [2013] HCA 43, Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34 - MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary dismissal of application for judicial review – Not reasonably arguable that County Court judge made reviewable error – Proposed grounds for judicial review have no prospects of success - Judicial review has no prospects of success – Summary dismissal granted - Civil Procedure Act 2010, ss 62, 63 - Shan v Zhang & Ors [2021] VSC 452, applied - Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Plaintiff, in person	Self-represented litigant
For the First Defendant	Mr Richardson of counsel	Knight Family Lawyers
No appearance for the Second Defendant

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This proceeding concerns an application by the plaintiff, Mr Baid, for judicial review of the decision of the County Court of Victoria (County Court), on appeal from the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (Magistrates’ Court), to make a personal safety intervention order (PSIO) against him. Mr Agrawal, the first defendant, is named as the protected person in the PSIO. PSIO are made under the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (PSIO Act).

In accordance with the normal practice, the second defendant entered an appearance and advised that it did not intend to take any active role in the proceeding and would abide by the decision of this Court in accordance with the Hardiman principle.[1]
[1]See R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman & Ors (1980) 144 CLR 13, [35]–[36].

By summons filed 12 August 2021, Mr Agrawal seeks summary judgment against Mr Baid pursuant to s 62 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (CPA) and an order for Mr Baid to pay his costs of the proceedings.

For the reasons that follow, I have decided to grant the application for summary judgment and will dismiss the proceedings.

Background

Mr Baid and Mr Agrawal met and became friends in Nepal. After moving to Australia in 2005 and 2006 respectively, they formed a successful international education consultancy business, AECC Global Pty Ltd (AECC).

By around late 2017, Mr Baid and…

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 Baid v Agrawal

Details

AGLC: Baid v Agrawal [2022] VSC 87
Case: [2022] VSC 87
Decision Date: 24 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Baid v Agrawal, the Court was called upon to review the decision of a County Court judge who had granted a final personal safety intervention order (PSO) under the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010. The applicant, Baid, sought judicial review of the County Court judge’s decision, which had upheld the PSO initially issued by a magistrate. The legal dispute centred on whether the County Court judge had erred in law or made a significant error of judgment warranting judicial review.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the County Court judge’s decision to uphold the PSO was subject to judicial review and if the grounds proposed by Baid had any prospects of success. The Court considered whether there was a reviewable error in the County Court judge’s decision-making process and if the proposed grounds for judicial review were likely to succeed. The Court applied principles from relevant authorities such as Wingfoot Australia Partners Pty Ltd v Kocak and Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, along with MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, to assess the merits of the judicial review application.

The Court determined that the application for judicial review did not present a case that was reasonably arguable, and the proposed grounds for review had no prospects of success. The Court held that the County Court judge had not made a reviewable error in upholding the PSO, as the decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and applicable legal standards. Consequently, the Court granted the summary dismissal of the application for judicial review, applying provisions from the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and referencing cases such as Shan v Zhang & Ors and Craig v South Australia.

The final orders of the Court were to summarily dismiss the application for judicial review, with no orders as to costs.

Orders