Haque - [2024] FedCFamC2G 1139

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Haque [2024] FedCFamC2G 1139

File number(s): SYG 1476 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE D HUMPHREYS

Date of judgment: 4 November 2024

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

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

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

Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth)

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

Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases cited:
Applicant X [2020] FCCA 2322

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

Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 92

Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd [2023] FedCFamC2G 228

Haque v Tessoriero [2017] FCA 86

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 12

Date of hearing: 25 October 2024

Place: Parramatta

Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented litigant
ORDERS

SYG 1476 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
AKM AZMERUL HAQUE

Applicant

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE D HUMPHREYS

DATE OF ORDER:

4 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.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 judgement 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): 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 judgement of 9 February 2017, Bromwich J affirmed a Registrar’s decision to refuse to accept a further application for leave to appeal and a supporting affidavit: Haque v Tessoriero [2017] FCA 86.
In July 2018, orders were made prohibiting the applicant form instituting proceedings under s 88Q(2)(b) of the then

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: Azmerul [2024] FedCFamC2G 1139
Case: [2024] FedCFamC2G 1139
Decision Date: 4 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Haque, who sought leave to institute proceedings against the respondent following the issuance of a vexatious litigant order against him. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether Haque should be granted leave to pursue the proposed proceedings, despite the existence of the vexatious litigant order that restricted his ability to commence legal actions without prior leave.

The court considered the nature and purpose of the vexatious litigant orders, which are designed to prevent individuals from repeatedly bringing claims that have no reasonable prospect of success. It was established that the orders are intended to protect the courts and other parties from unnecessary litigation. The court also assessed the merits of Haque's proposed proceedings, examining whether they met the criteria for leave under the applicable rules of court.

After evaluating the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the proposed proceedings were unlikely to succeed and did not meet the threshold for granting leave. The court emphasised that the vexatious litigant order was in place to prevent Haque from initiating further litigation without demonstrating a reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, the application for leave was dismissed, and Haque was not permitted to proceed with the proposed legal action.

The final order of the court was that Haque's application for leave to institute proceedings was dismissed, and he was not granted permission to bring the proposed legal action against the respondent.

Orders