Haque - [2025] FedCFamC2G 341

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Haque [2025] FedCFamC2G 341

File number(s): SYG 632 of 2025

Judgment of: JUDGE D HUMPHREYS

Date of judgment: 12 March 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to institute fresh proceedings following vexatious litigant orders-application dismissed

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth)

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 88Q(2)(b)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 243

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) rr 13.10(b), 13.10(c)

Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases cited:
Haque [2024] FedFCFamC2G 1139

Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 228

Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 92

Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd and Anor [2016] FCCA 147

Haque v Tessoriero [2017] FCA 86

In the application for leave to institute proceedings by Applicant X [2020] FCCA 2322

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 13

Place: Parramatta

Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented litigant
ORDERS

SYG 632 of 2025

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
AKM HAQUE AZMERUL

Applicant

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE D HUMPHREYS

DATE OF ORDER:

12 MARCH 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Leave is not granted for the applicant to institute fresh proceedings.
2.Pursuant to s 243 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 ( Cth), the proposed proceedings are dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE D HUMPHREYS
INTRODUCTION

This matter has a long and complicated history. In 2014, the applicant instituted proceedings in the (then) Federal Circuit Court alleging that his former employer, Jabella Group Pty Ltd, had breached a number of sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) and the Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth).
In a judgment of 4 February 2016, Judge Nicholls dismissed the application pursuant to r 13.10(b) and (c) of the (then) Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (FCC Rules): Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd and Anor [2016] FCCA 147. His Honour found the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.
The applicant sought to appeal that decision. On 18 August 2016, Bromwich J of the Federal Court dismissed an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal: Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 92. In a further judgment of 9 February 2017, Bromwich J affirmed a Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept a further application for leave 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.

Continue reading Haque

Details

AGLC: Haque [2025] FedCFamC2G 341
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 341
Decision Date: 12 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haque involved an application by the respondent for leave to institute fresh proceedings against the applicant. The application was made following orders made by the court declaring the applicant to be a vexatious litigant. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), which governs the declaration of vexatious litigants and the process for applying for leave to institute fresh proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for leave to institute fresh proceedings was an "application" as defined under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The court had to determine whether the application was a new proceeding or a continuation of the previous proceedings. This was crucial because the definition of an "application" impacts the court's discretion in granting leave to bring fresh proceedings. The court considered whether the application was a genuine attempt to bring new claims or merely a continuation of the previous litigation.

The court held that the application was not a new proceeding but rather a continuation of the previous litigation. The court found that the application was an attempt to circumvent the vexatious litigant orders and was therefore not a genuine attempt to bring new claims. The court dismissed the application for leave to institute fresh proceedings, noting that the application was vexatious and an abuse of the court process. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and the need to prevent litigants from using the courts to pursue vexatious litigation.

The court did not make any orders in favour of the respondent. The application for leave to institute fresh proceedings was dismissed, and the respondent was not granted permission to bring new proceedings against the applicant. The court reiterated the importance of respecting the orders made under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and the need to prevent vexatious litigation.

Orders