Bhagat v Murphy; Bhagat v Royal and Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd; Bhagat v Peter Young; Bhagat v Global Custodians Limited; Bhagat v Murphy as Trustee and Unitholder of the Meridan Sub-Trusts
[2002] NSWSC 384
•24 April 2002
CITATION: Bhagat v Murphy & Ors; Bhagat v Royal and Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd & Ors; Bhagat v Peter Young & Ors; Bhagat v Global Custodians Limited & Ors; Bhagat v Murphy as Trustee & Unitholder of The Meridan Sub-Trusts & Ors [2002] NSWSC 384 revised - 28/05/2002 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20106/02; 20865/01; 20095/02; 20817/01; 20816/01 HEARING DATE(S): 25 March, 26 March, 17 April and 24 April 2002 JUDGMENT DATE: 24 April 2002 PARTIES :
Hari Bhagat v John William Murphy as trustee of the Meridian Investment Trust No 4 (D1), Arthur Andersen (D2), Tyndall Funds Management (NSW) Limited (ACN 003 326 654) (D3), Grant Smith (D4), Baker & McKenzie (D5), Westpac Custodian Nominees Limited (ACN 002 861 565) (D6) (20106/02)Hari Bhagat v Royal and Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Limited (ACN 008 413 545) (D1), Duncan Boyle (D2), Greg Couston (D3), Nicholas Cowdery (D4) (20865/01)
Hari Bhagat v Peter Young (D1), Global Custodians Ltd (ACN 003 588 378) (D2), John Healey Speight and Jessee Barrie Marr Speight (D3), Archie Greenlees and Norma Patricia Greenlees (D4), David O'Bryen (D5), Michael Wilkins (D6), Robin Margo (D7), Holding Redlich (D8), Harold Werksman (D9), Jeffrey Flick (D10), Anthony Spencer (D11) (20095/02)
Hari Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd (ACN 003 588 378) (D1), John Healey Speight and Jessee Barrie Marr Speight (D2), Archie Greenlees and Norma Patricia Greenlees (D3), David O'Bryen (D4), Michael Wilkins (D5), Robin Margo (D6), Harold Werksman (D7), Holding Redlich (D8), Jeffrey Flick (D9), Anthony Spencer (D10), Peter Young (D11), Nicholas Cowdery (D12) (20817/01)
Hari Bhagat v John William Murphy (D1), Michael Wilkins (D2), Tyndall Funds Management (NSW) Ltd (ACN 003 326 654) (D3), Tyndall Australia Ltd (ACN 000 015 949) (D4), Guiness Peat Group plc (ACN 003 209 836) D5, David O'Bryen (D6), Gary Weiss (D7), Sir Ron Brierley (D8), Global Custodians Ltd (ACN 003 588 378) (D9), Westpac Custodian Nominees Ltd (ACN 002 861 565) (D10), Dennis Fox (D11), Joe Bracher (D12), Michael Good (D13), Elizabeth Grinston (D14), Leo Tutt (D15), John Mallick (D16), Harold Bentley (D17), John English (D18), Brian Preston (D19), Robyn Ann Chalmers (D20), Tina Noonan (D21), Peter Young (D22), Nicholas Cowdery (D23) (20816/01)
JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1
COUNSEL : Plaintiff appeared unrepresented in all matters.
Mr B Preston SC for D1 in 20106/01 and D1-5 in 20095/02, D4-5 in 20817/01 and D1-4, D6-9, D11-18 and D20-21 in 20816/01;
Mr R F Margo SC for Global Custodians Ltd defendants;
Mr S Robb QC D1-3 in 20865/01;
Mr M Knight for D5 in 20816/01;
Mr T H Barrett (D4 in 20865/01, D1 in 20095/02, D11-12 in 20817/01 and D22-23 in 20816/01SOLICITORS: Plaintiff unrepresented
Mallesons Stephen Jacques for D1-5 in 20106/02,
D7 & 8 in 20095/02, D6 & 7 in 20817/01 and D1-4, D6 - 9, D11-18, D20 & 21 in 20816/02
Acuiti Legal D1-3 in 20865/01
I V Knight for D4 in 20865/01, D1 in 20095/02, D13 & 14 in 20817/01 and D22 & 23 in 20816/01,
Colin Biggers & Paisley D9 in 20095/02 and D8 in 20817/01
Holding Redlich for D10 & D12 in 20095/02, D1-5, D9 - 11 in 20817/01
Coudert Brothers for D5 in 20816/01
CATCHWORDS: Application for stay - denied DECISION: Applications dismissed with costs.
Revised
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADAMS J
WEDNESDAY 24 APRIL 2002
20106/02 - HARI BHAGAT v JOHN WILLIAM MURPHY AS TRUSTEE OF THE MERIDIAN INVESTMENT TRUST FORMERLY ESTATE MORTGAGE DEPOSITORS TRUST NO 4 & ORS
20865/01 - HARI BHAGAT - AS A SHAREHOLDER OF TYNDALL AUSTRALIA LIMITED AND GUINNESS PEAT GROUP PLC AND A BENEFICIARY OF THE MERIDIAN INVESTMENT TRUST v ROYAL AND SUN ALLIANCE LIFE ASSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 008 413 545) & ORS
20095/02 - HARI BHAGAT v PETER YOUNG & ORS
20817/01 - HARI BHAGAT v GLOBAL CUSTODIANS LIMITED & ORS
20816/01 - HARI BHAGAT - AS A BENEFICIARY OF THE MERIDIAN INVESTMENT TRUST AND SHAREHOLDER OF TYNDALL AUSTRALIA LIMITED AND GUINNESS PEAT GROUP PLC v JOHN WILLIAM MURPHY AS TRUSTEE AND UNITHOLDER OF THE MERIDIAN SUB-TRUSTS & ORS
JUDGMENT - dismissing the applications for a stay of judgments in 20095/02 and other proceedings pending appeal; see p 4 of transcript
1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application for a stay of the judgments which I made in respect of proceedings brought by Mr Bhagat against Mr Justice Peter Young, amongst others.
2 Mr Bhagat put at the forefront of his submission the argument that unless a stay were granted the appeal will be useless. This is plainly wrong. If the Court of Appeal holds that my judgment is wrong, Mr Bhagat will, of course, be able to continue with the actions which I have struck out.
3 Mr Bhagat has also submitted in relation to the orders that these matters should be transferred to the Equity Division of the Court; that since one of, what I will call for convenience his causes of action, is a conspiracy to cheat and defraud and that this is a common law offence, if it is heard in the Equity Division it will be dismissed because, he says, equity does not know of or cannot deal with common law offences. This demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the relationship between the common law and equity and the relationship between the Common Law and Equity Divisions of this Court. The Equity Division is fully charged, as is the Common Law Division, with jurisdiction to deal with all legal questions, whether legal or equitable, that fall for decision in the course of litigation brought in this Court and in relation to which the Court as a whole has jurisdiction.
4 Mr Bhagat has also submitted, in accordance with my direction, a number of matters in writing. I do not think it necessary for the purposes of this judgment to set them out here, although I will have them attached as an appendix. It is sufficient to say that nothing in those submissions justifies the grant of a stay against any of the orders which I made on 26 March last.
Accordingly the applications are dismissed with costs.
SUBMISSIONS OF PLAINTIFF TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY ORAL ARGUMENTS
1. The Plaintiff relies on the authorities quoted in Ritchies Annotation in 44.5.1, 44.5.3, 51.15.1, 51.15.2 and 51.15.3. in respect of a stay pending appeal for the transfer of the proceedings from the Common Law Division to the Equity Division;.
2. The Plaintiff also relies on the Judgement of Mr Justice Young Delivered on 17 August 2001 in Supreme Court Proceedings No 1848/1999 and in Supreme Court Proceedings No 1848/99, No 1660/00 and 2494/00 that the offences pleaded by the Plaintiff are Common Law offences and that the interests of justice demands that the matter be heard in the Common Law Division
4. The Plaintiff relies on s. 88 to s.89 of the Act.
5. The requirements of justice demands a Stay of the Transfer of the Proceedings from the Common Law Division to the Equity Division, pending Appeal; SINCE: (a) a successful Appeal will be useless unless the stay was granted; (b) unless the stay is granted an appeal will be nugatory;
FILED: 23 April 2002
- Hari Bhagat, Plaintiff
0
0
0