FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cull v Singh [2024] FCA 258
File number: VID 492 of 2022 Judgment of: SNADEN J Date of judgment: 22 March 2024 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for vexatious proceedings orders pursuant to s 37AO of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether respondent is a person who has frequently commenced vexatious proceedings – meaning of “vexatious” – whether respondent has a history of relitigating matters decided against him – whether respondent has a history of burdening courts and other litigants with applications that are hopeless or otherwise abuses of process – nature and appropriateness of orders – orders granted Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 58, 60
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37AM, 37AO
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 7
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Cases cited: Boensch v Pascoe [2016] NSWCA 191
Fokas v Mansfield as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Maria Fokas (No 2) [2020] FCA 30
Fuller v Toms (2015) 234 FCR 535
Fokas v Mansfield as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Maria Fokas (No 2) [2020] FCA 30
Lekhwar v Singh [2022] NSWCATCD 108
Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Gargan (No 2) [2009] FCA 398
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Limited (No 6) [2022] FCA 615
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd, in the matter of Singh [2020] FCA 886
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd, in the matter of Singh [2021] FCAFC 14
Singh v Khan [2021] NSWSC 1093
Singh v Khan (No 2) [2021] FCA 463
Singh v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2022] NSWSC 78
Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 72 Date of hearing: 28 April 2023 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr A Segal Solicitor for the Applicants: Mason Black & Mendelsons Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent appeared in person ORDERS
VID 492 of 2022 BETWEEN: INNIS ANTHONY CULL
First Applicant
GESS MICHAEL RAMBALDI
Second Applicant
AND: GURJIT SINGH
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
SNADEN J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 MARCH 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to section 37AO(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the respondent be prohibited from instituting or continuing to prosecute, in any registry of the Federal Court of Australia, any proceedings without leave of this court.
2.The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed in default of agreement in accordance with the court’s Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS).
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SNADEN J:
The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the “FCA Act”) provides for the making of what are known as “vexatious proceedings…
Continue reading Cull v Singh
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cull v Singh [2024] FCA 258
- Case
- [2024] FCA 258
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether Singh was a person who frequently commenced vexatious proceedings. This involved interpreting the term "vexatious" and assessing whether Singh had a history of relitigating matters that had already been decided against him, as well as whether he had a pattern of burdening courts and other litigants with applications that were hopeless or otherwise constituted an abuse of process. The court also needed to consider the nature and appropriateness of any orders that might be made to address the vexatious behaviour.
The court found that Singh had indeed engaged in vexatious litigation by repeatedly pursuing matters that had already been decided against him, thereby abusing the court process and burdening the legal system. The court concluded that Singh's conduct warranted the granting of the orders sought by Cull. Consequently, the court made an order prohibiting Singh from instituting or continuing any proceedings in any registry of the Federal Court without leave, and ordered Singh to pay the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the application. The orders were intended to curtail Singh's vexatious litigation and to ensure that the court’s resources were not wasted on futile proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to section 37AO(2)(b) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the respondent be prohibited from instituting or continuing to prosecute, in any registry of the Federal Court of Australia, any proceedings without leave of this court.
2. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed in default of agreement in accordance with the court’s Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS).
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.