Datta v AAI Limited trading as GIO - [2025] NSWSC 112

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Datta v AAI Limited trading as GIO & Ors [2025] NSWSC 112
Hearing dates: 21 May 2024
Date of orders: 26 February 2025
Decision date: 26 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1)   Proceedings dismissed.
(2)   The plaintiffs shall pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including the costs of the motions.
(3)   Any party seeking a special or different order for costs may do so within 14 days of the date of this judgment.
(4)   Such application shall be made in writing by a submission of not more than 5 pages, not including a document upon which reliance is placed.
(5)   Any party disadvantaged by such an application may respond to the application in a further 14 days by a submission of not more than 5 pages, not including any document upon which the party may rely by way of evidence.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings — Abuse of process — No reasonable cause of action disclosed

Legislation Cited:
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), ss 236, 237
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), s 28
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 60
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 2A, 105
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 13.4

Cases Cited:
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for
Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543; [1988] HCA 52
Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mrinal Datta (First Plaintiff) (self-represented)
Raj Ama Tembur (Second Plaintiff) (self-represented)
AAI Limited trading as GIO (First Defendant)
Matthew Garling (Second Defendant)
Nicole Compton (Third Defendant)
Joshua Dale (Fourth Defendant)
Paul Stockley (Fifth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
L D Robison (First Defendant)
N Simone (Second Defendant)
S Maybury (Third Defendant)
K Holcombe (Fourth Defendant)
Q M Noakhtar (Fifth Defendant)
Solicitors:
Hall & Wilcox (First Defendant)
Mills Oakley (Second Defendant)
DLA Piper (Third Defendant)
Moray & Agnew (Fourth Defendant)
Barry Nilsson Lawyers (Fifth Defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/224777
Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The Court has before it a motion to strike out summarily the proceedings commenced by the first and second plaintiff, Mrinal Datta and Raj Ama Tembur. The defendants seek that the statement of claim and the proceedings be summarily dismissed on the basis that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed and that the proceedings are taken as an abuse of process.
The proceedings have a convoluted history and the chronology, which it is unnecessary to set out in full, commences in 2001 when the first plaintiff was working as a security officer and was injured in an assault. The first defendant, trading as GIO, was the insurer for the former employer at the time. In 2002, the first plaintiff returned to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Datta v AAI Limited trading as GIO and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 112
Decision Date: 26 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Datta v AAI Limited trading as GIO was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff, Mr Datta, sought to bring a claim against the defendant, AAI Limited, which trades as GIO. The plaintiff's action was premised on alleged breaches of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. Mr Datta sought damages for losses he claimed to have incurred as a result of these alleged breaches.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and whether the proceedings should be dismissed on the grounds of abuse of process. The court was required to assess the merits of the claim, including the adequacy of the evidence provided and the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding in the action.

The court found that the plaintiff had not disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to support the claims made. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiff's conduct amounted to an abuse of the court process. The court found that the proceedings had been brought without a genuine prospect of success and were being pursued for an improper purpose. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders