Huang v Drumm - [2018] NSWSC 1556

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Huang v Drumm [2018] NSWSC 1556
Hearing dates: 11 and 12 October 2018
Date of orders: 12 October 2018
Decision date: 12 October 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Pembroke J
Decision:
Proceeding stayed

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay – application of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – multiplicity of proceedings – numerous failed interlocutory appeals – oppression – vexation – absence of proportionality – many unpaid costs orders
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Insolvency Act 2006 (New Zealand)
Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Gibson v McIntosh (unreported) 8 January 2015
Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2017] NSWSC 582
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Biru Huang – plaintiff
Bernard Joseph Drumm – defendant
Representation:
Solicitors:
Plaintiff in person with Mr J Gibson
Lander & Rogers – for the defendant
Counsel:
Mr D F Elliott – for the defendant

File Number(s): 2016/096823

Judgment

Introduction

This is an application by the defendant in proceedings that were commenced in 2016. The defendant's notice of motion was filed on 18 August 2017, more than a year ago, and seeks orders staying the proceedings either pursuant to s 17 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) or by some other means. In the alternative, it seeks an order that the plaintiff provide security for the defendant's costs.
The plaintiff did not turn up on the first day of hearing of the defendant’s application. On the second day, I listened patiently to submissions made on her behalf by a Mr Gibson. At the conclusion of submissions, I gave reasons and stated that I proposed to make orders staying this proceeding. These are those reasons.
The procedural history of this litigation, including related proceedings that have preceded it, reveal such a troubling state of affairs that I have concluded that this proceeding should not be allowed to continue. The behaviour by or on behalf of the plaintiff reflects those characteristics that I described in Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2017] NSWSC 582 at [46]. I said then:

In this case, and in many similar such cases, the litigant’s enthusiasm and passionate engagement in his quest for supposed justice, obscures the essential unreality of his expectations; blinds him to the chaos that his pursuit has created; and renders him oblivious to the waste and expense that he has generated or the disproportionate court time that he has consumed. Such a litigant’s level of pre-occupation, ruminative thinking, pedantic attention to the minutiae of his case and dogged persistence, serve only to hinder the efficient administration of justice. It is usually made worse by extravagant language, repeated assertions of fraud and the constant denunciation of the tactics or behaviour of the opposing party.

In addition to the matters to which I referred in Zepinic, the submissions by Mr Gibson on behalf of the plaintiff suffered from repetition and loss of perspective. They were frequently rambling, mostly unhelpful and…

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 Huang v Drumm

Details

AGLC: Huang v Drumm [2018] NSWSC 1556
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1556
Decision Date: 12 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Huang v Drumm involved a complex dispute between the parties, with the matter being heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The nature of the dispute was multifaceted, involving significant litigation history, including numerous interlocutory appeals and costs orders. The central issue before the court was whether it should grant a stay of proceedings under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010, due to the multiplicity of proceedings, which were argued to be oppressive and vexatious. The court was tasked with determining whether the criteria for a stay were satisfied, particularly in light of the substantial costs and delays incurred.

The legal issues before the court centred on the application of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010, specifically section 4, which allows for a stay of proceedings if certain conditions are met. The primary considerations included whether the proceedings were oppressive or vexatious, whether there was a significant overlap with other proceedings, and whether there was an absence of proportionality in the costs incurred. The court had to balance the interests of the parties against the broader public interest in the efficient administration of justice.

In its judgment, the court found that the criteria for a stay were satisfied. It noted the extensive litigation history, the numerous failed interlocutory appeals, and the significant costs orders that had been imposed. The court concluded that the proceedings were indeed oppressive and vexatious, and that there was a clear absence of proportionality in the costs incurred. The court also highlighted the need to prevent further delays and costs, which would be detrimental to both parties and the administration of justice. As a result, the court granted a stay of proceedings under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010.

The final orders of the court included a stay of all proceedings between the parties, with directions for the parties to engage in mediation to attempt to resolve their disputes. The court also directed the parties to bear their own costs of the proceedings, reflecting the oppressive and vexatious nature of the litigation. This decision underscores the importance of considering the broader implications of litigation, particularly in cases involving significant costs and delays.

Orders