Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd - [2016] FCA 962

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 962

Appeal from:
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal:

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

File number: NSD 340 of 2016

Judge: BROMWICH J

Date of judgment: 18 August 2016

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal – where appeal has no prospect of success – application dismissed

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

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1A)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 35.13, 36.01

Cases cited:
Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397

SZTRY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 86

Date of hearing: 9 June 2016

Registry: New South Wales

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 40

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr J Mattson, Bartier Perry

ORDERS

NSD 340 of 2016

BETWEEN:
AKM AZMERUL HAQUE

Applicant

AND:
JABELLA GROUP PTY LTD

First Respondent

JASON BAKER

Second Respondent

JUDGE:

BROMWICH J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 AUGUST 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs as taxed or agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BROMWICH J:

This is an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 4 February 2016. The primary judge granted the respondents’ application in a case for summary dismissal of the applicant’s amended application filed in that Court on 13 January 2015. The respondents’ application in a case was filed on 14 May 2015 and was brought pursuant to rr 13.10(b) and 13.10(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (the FCC Rules) asserting that the amended application was frivolous or vexatious and/or an abuse of process.
The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal filed by the applicant
Because the respondents’ successful application for summary dismissal of the amended application was interlocutory, s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Federal Court Act) requires leave to appeal. Rule 35.13 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) provides that a written application for leave to appeal must be filed within 14 days after the date on which the judgment was pronounced or the order was made, or such other date as is fixed by the Court. No other date was fixed, so the application for leave to appeal was required to be made by 18 February 2016. The 18 February 2016 deadline was not met. Instead, the applicant filed the present application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal 19 days…

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 Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd 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: [2016] FCA 962
Decision Date: 18 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd involved an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court. The primary issue was whether the applicant's appeal had any prospect of success, given the extensive difficulties in understanding his case. The Federal Circuit Court had dismissed the applicant's amended application, finding it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The applicant sought to appeal this decision, but the Federal Court needed to decide whether to grant leave to appeal. The court examined the applicant's submissions and found them to be largely incomprehensible and devoid of any clear legal arguments or grounds of appeal. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated any basis upon which an appeal would succeed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the application for leave to appeal itself was frivolous or vexatious. The court assessed the coherence and clarity of the applicant's submissions and determined that they failed to present any meaningful grounds for appeal. The court emphasised that the applicant's case was riddled with narrative grievances rather than legal arguments, making it impossible to discern any coherent legal case. The court also noted that the applicant's attitude in the proceedings was marked by a refusal to clarify his grievances or respond meaningfully to the respondents' submissions, further undermining the prospects of a successful appeal.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need for clarity and coherence in legal proceedings. It found that the applicant's submissions were largely incomprehensible and did not identify any clear errors of law or fact on the part of the Federal Circuit Court. The court concluded that the appeal was frivolous because there was no meaningful basis upon which it could succeed. Furthermore, the court found that the application for leave to appeal itself was vexatious and an abuse of process, as it perpetuated the same lack of clarity and coherence that had plagued the original proceedings. The court dismissed the application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal, and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondents' costs as taxed or agreed. This decision reinforced the importance of clear and coherent legal submissions in judicial proceedings and underscored the consequences of failing to present a comprehensible case.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs as taxed or agreed.

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

Because an issue was taken as to formatting at the hearing before me, I also reproduce images of the document extracted above:Primary judge’s reasons and conclusions The primary judge’s reasons in granting the application for summary dismissal are methodical and detailed, running to 170 paragraphs. The reasons make a valiant attempt to outline the substance of the amended application relied upon by the applicant before his Honour. They also address the authorities in relation to unrepresented litigants and what constitutes frivolous and vexatious proceedings, and proceedings that are an abuse of process. It is helpful to summarise some aspects of the conclusions his Honour reached in aid of the final decision and order to dismiss the applicant’s amended application. His Honour observed that there was no doubt that the applicant had a deeply felt grievance against the second respondent and, by extension, the first respondent. However, his Honour noted that the extensive reference in his reasons to the applicant’s purported answer to the respondents’ application for summary dismissal illustrated the difficulty, if not impossibility, of establishing any coherent case brought by the applicant, let alone one that was amenable to recognition as a case at law. His Honour observed that, while the material submitted by the applicant was in the form of affidavits and annexures to affidavits, it could not, even on a generous view, be said to be recognisable as an attempt to put evidence before the Court. Rather, his Honour noted, the material consisted, in large part, of narrative expressions of the applicant’s grievances. I have reviewed all of that material and am unable to find any basis to disagree with his Honour’s conclusion. I agree with his Honour that the material presented by the applicant before the Federal Circuit Court was, for the most part, impenetrable, and in parts, incoherent. I agree that even on a number of close readings, that material is immune from conveying meaning relevant to progressing what is, after all, a legal proceeding. That approach continued in the applicant’s presentations of arguments, such as they were, in support of his application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal in this Court. As in the case before the Federal Circuit Court, this Court was left to speculate, to a significant degree, as to the real nature of the grievances that the applicant advances, the relief he seeks, and the relevance or otherwise of the various statements and assertions that he makes to any identifiable cause(s) of action. The applicant’s attitude and approach to the proceedings seemed very much to be one in which he would make a series of sweeping assertions and generalisations and then complain that the respondents had failed to identify what, specifically, was unclear about any of them. The applicant maintains before this Court that it was the responsibility of the respondents and the Court to tell him what was wrong with the case that he was seeking to bring.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

His Honour concluded that the proceedings were therefore also an abuse of process for all of the reasons his Honour set out in relation to frivolous and vexatious proceedings. His Honour therefore found that the respondents had discharged the heavy burden, as identified in the authorities cited by his Honour, of making out the matters in r 13.10(c) of the FCC Rules. Again, I am unable to discern any error in his Honour’s reasoning.Consideration At the hearing of the application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal, the respondents relied upon their written submissions and did not seek to make any further arguments. That is understandable, because the submissions were comprehensive and the applicant made no meaningful attempt to respond to them.Proposed grounds of appeal The respondents submit that the proposed notice of appeal suffers from the same vice that led to the primary judge dismissing the applicant’s amended application as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of process. I consider that to be a fair characterisation of the grounds taken as a whole. As the respondents point out, even after a reading of the applicant’s affidavits in support of his application for an extension of time and leave to appeal, no insight can be gained as to the grounds of appeal and it is unfair to expect the Court or the respondents to guess what they might be. Turning to the submissions about the specific grounds advanced, the respondents submit that proposed ground 1 appears to assert that the form of the applicant’s amended application was a formatting error. The applicant enlarged upon this at the hearing of the application and said that he had since followed the forms provided by the Federal Circuit Court and accordingly was not responsible for any deficiency. The respondents point out in the supporting affidavit of the applicant filed 11 May 2016 at [1.2] that the applicant quotes the following to describe the matter: “no fault of his own”, “obfuscated by procedural failing”, “idea of error” and “scattered format”. As the respondents submit, the meaning of these expressions cannot be penetrated. The respondents submit that no error of law or fact is identifiable and that, in any event, the amended application was not dismissed by the primary judge because of any formatting errors. I consider that each part of those submissions and the totality of those submissions are correct. In relation to proposed ground 1, I consider that there is no meaningful ground of appeal able to be discerned from the material provided by the applicant. The respondents submit that proposed grounds 2 and 3 do not identify any error of law or fact on the part of the primary judge. In my view that is correct. There is no suggestion of any error on the part of the primary judge and the only references to the primary judge’s reasons appear to be raising questions of formatting. The respondents describe proposed ground 4 as misguided. The respondents somewhat generously suggest that this proposed ground is suggesting that the primary judge did not consider the applicant’s material before his Honour. The respondents’ submissions then point to the fact that this was not so because of the extensive reference to that material. Whilst I do not disagree with the content of that submission, I prefer to regard proposed ground 4 as failing to identify any ground of appeal.

Appeal from:	Application for extension of time and leave to appeal: Haque v Jabella Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] FCCA 147
File number:	NSD 340 of 2016
Judge:	BROMWICH J
Date of judgment:	18 August 2016
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time and leave to appeal – where appeal has no prospect of success – application dismissed
Legislation:	Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr 13.10(b), 13.10(c) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1A) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr 35.13, 36.01
Cases cited:	Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 SZTRY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 86
Date of hearing:	9 June 2016
Registry:	New South Wales
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Employment & Industrial Relations
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	40
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Mr J Mattson, Bartier Perry

JUDGE:	BROMWICH J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 AUGUST 2016