Islam v Raine & Horne Corp - [2023] NSWSC 1184

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Islam v Raine & Horne Corp [2023] NSWSC 1184
Hearing dates: 04 October 2023
Date of orders: 06 October 2023
Decision date: 06 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – application to strike out statement of claim – where plaintiff acts for himself and pleads a string of genuinely held but unparticularised grievances – where identical statement of claim already filed and summarily dismissed in Equity Division

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 13.4
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) s 8

Cases Cited:
In the matter of Raine & Horne Corporation [2023] NSWSC 706
Islam v Mitry Lawyers Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 700
Islam v Ratul (District Court (NSW), Andronos SC DCJ, 31 May 2023, unrep.)
Islam v UI Karim [2023] NSWSC 717

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Md Rajibul Islam (Plaintiff)
Edmund Angus Raine (2nd Defendant)
Celeste Kopps (3rd Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Philips (2nd and 3rd Defendants)
Solicitors:
Russell Kennedy Lawyers

File Number(s): 2023/195738
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: By notice of motion filed on 10 August 2023, Edmund Angus Raine and Celeste Kopps seek orders in the alternative that the proceedings be dismissed or that the statement of claim filed on 19 June 2023 be struck out. For the reasons that follow, I consider that the proceedings should be dismissed.

Background

Md Rajibul Islam is a former director and shareholder of Australian Real Estate Relation Pty Ltd (in liquidation). Mr Abu Walid Ratul is the other former director and shareholder of the company, which operated as a Raine & Horne franchisee until 30 November 2022.
Mr Raine is the executive chairman and sole director of Raine & Horne Pty Ltd. Ms Kopps is an employee of Raine & Horne and was the business development manager for the Ingleburn area. The named first defendant does not exist, either as a company, registered business name or other form of legal entity.
Mr Islam and corporate entities purportedly under his control have commenced other related proceedings against the Mr Raine and Ms Kopps in both the Equity and Common Law Divisions of this Court.
The proceedings in the Equity Division were dismissed by Black J on 21 June 2023: In the matter of Raine & Horne Corporation [2023] NSWSC 706. The proceedings in the Common Law Division were the subject of summary dismissal and strike out motions that were heard by Campbell J on 25 July 2023. His Honour is yet to deliver his judgment.
Various other proceedings commenced by Mr Islam in relation to the affairs of the company have been dismissed or struck out: see Islam v Ratul (District Court of NSW, Andronos SC DCJ, 31 May 2023, unreported); Islam v UI Karim [2023] NSWSC 717 and Islam v Mitry Lawyers Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 700.
On 22 August 2023, Mr Ratul filed a summons in the Equity Division seeking, amongst other things, an…

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 Islam v Raine & Horne Corp 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: [2023] NSWSC 1184
Decision Date: 06 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, acting as his own legal representative, filed an application in the County Court of Victoria against Raine & Horne Corp, a real estate agency. The plaintiff alleged a variety of grievances, including claims of defamation, breach of contract, and negligence, but did not provide specific details or evidence to support these allegations. The real estate agency sought to have the statement of claim struck out, arguing that it was vague and did not contain sufficient particulars to enable a meaningful response. The case was heard by the County Court, which had to determine whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was sufficiently particularised to allow the case to proceed.

The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was particularised enough to avoid being struck out. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's grievances, while genuinely held, were presented in a manner that allowed the defendant to understand the claims against it and to prepare a proper defence. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff's previous statement of claim, which was dismissed for similar reasons, should influence its decision in the current matter.

The court found that the plaintiff's statement of claim was not sufficiently particularised. The plaintiff had a string of grievances but did not provide specific details or evidence to support these claims. The court noted that while the plaintiff was entitled to act as his own legal representative, he was still required to follow the rules of civil procedure and provide sufficient particulars in his statement of claim. The court also considered the previous dismissal of an identical statement of claim, which further supported its decision to strike out the current statement of claim. The court concluded that the plaintiff's statement of claim was vague and did not provide the defendant with enough information to prepare a proper defence.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's statement of claim be struck out. The court noted that the plaintiff had the opportunity to amend his statement of claim to include the necessary particulars, but if he failed to do so, the case would be dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of following the rules of civil procedure and providing sufficient particulars in a statement of claim to ensure that both parties can effectively participate in the legal process.

Orders