Mallegowda v The Transport Secretary

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Mallegowda v The Transport Secretary [2024] NSWCATEN 1

Hearing dates:

26 April 2024

Date of orders:

31 July 2024

Decision date:

31 July 2024

Jurisdiction:

Enforcement

Before:

Coleman SC ADCJ, Principal Member

Decision:

That the application filed on 26 March 2024 is dismissed.

Catchwords:

CONTEMPT — referral to Supreme Court pursuant to s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 — whether Respondent misused documents for ulterior purpose — whether Respondent breached the Harman principle

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Canterbury Bankstown Council v Payce Communities Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 1419

DVI v ZTT [2021] NSWCATEN 4

Esso Resources Ltd & Ors v The Honourable Sidney James Plowman & Ors [1995] HCA 19

Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1983) 1 AC 280

Hearn v Street [2008] HCA 36

Helicopter Aerial Surveys Pty Limited v Gary Robertson [2015] NSWSC 2104

Jones v Treasury Wine Estates Limited (No. 4) (2020) FCA 1131

Mallegowda v Secretary of the Department of Transport [2024] NSWCATAD 77

Mann v Medical Defence Union Ltd [1997] FCA 45

Moore v Bond University Limited [2023] NSWSC 1129

Street & Ors v Hearn & Anor [2007] NSWCA 113

Treasury Wine Estates Limited v Maurice Blackburn Pty Limited (2020) FCAFC 226

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Shashikanth Mallegowda (Applicant)
The Transport Secretary (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Applicant (self-represented)
Spark Helmore (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/00116697

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. On 26 March 2024, Shashikanth Mallegowda (Applicant) filed an application seeking that the Transport Secretary for the State of New South Wales (Respondent) be referred to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 73(5) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2013 (NSW) (CAT Act) to be dealt with for contempt of the Tribunal.

2. The application pleaded that “The alleged conduct of Respondent (Transport Secretary – Josh Murray) and their legal representatives including Mr Martin Watts (Junior Counsel), Ms Felicity Edwards (solicitor on records), Ms D Al-Haj Qasam (solicitor) and Ms Elyse Galvin (instructing solicitor)) for contempt of court” on the basis that, as the grounds pleaded by the Applicant alleged, the Respondent and the Respondent’s legal representatives “misused the documents (amended application for victimisation dated 24 May 2023 from Industrial Relations Commission) for ulterior purposes by emailing and tendering that document to another jurisdiction (NCAT) on 13 March 2024”.

3. The Respondent was submitted to have provided the document to the Tribunal and “repeatedly referred to the information/contents of that document” in submissions made on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent was submitted to have thereby “breached the implied undertaking for using the document from one proceeding to other proceedings without the leave of the Industrial Relations Commission”. The use or information obtained or produced under the compulsory processes or rule of court or process of the court cannot be used for “collateral or ulterior purpose” in an unrelated proceeding. Here the amended victimisation application…