Millard v Collins - [2021] ACTSC 216

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Dhillon v The Canberra Sikh Association Inc
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 271
Hearing Date:	13 June 2025
Decision Date:	30 June 2025
Before:	Muller AJ
Decision:	See [19]
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to order filing of statement of claim – where
proceedings correctly commenced by originating application – convenience of treating as if started by originating claim – general importance of pleadings – significant factual dispute
Legislation Cited:	Associations Incorporation Act 1991 (ACT), s 49
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 33(2), 34(2), 39(2), 50(2)
Cases Cited:	Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd v Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty
Ltd [2010] ACTSC 20 Millard v Collins [2021] ACTSC 216
Parties:	Jiwan Dhillon (Applicant)
The Canberra Sikh Association Inc (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel
Jeffrey Levine (Applicant) Athol Opas (Respondent)
Solicitors
Matrix Legal (Applicant) Signus Legal (Respondent)
File Number:	SC 138 of 2025
MULLER AJ:
Introduction
1․	The applicant (Mr Dhillon) commenced this proceeding by way of an originating
application lodged on 17 April 2025.
2․	The respondent (the Association) is an incorporated association and registered charity
in the ACT with some 800 members. According to its constitution the objects of the
Association include the promotion in Australia of an understanding of the Sikh
philosophy, religion and culture, and the fostering of a sense of community amongst Sikh
people in the region.
3․	Mr Dhillon is a member of the Association, and by his originating application he seeks a
number of orders that are directed to governance issues, said to arise pursuant to the
Associations Incorporation Act 1991 (ACT) (Associations Incorporation Act) and/or
pursuant to the Association’s own constitution.
4․	There were two applications in proceeding before the Court. The application lodged by
Mr Dhillon on 11 June 2025 sought leave to file an amended originating application in
the form annexed to his affidavit affirmed on the same day. The Association consented
to Mr Dhillon’s application.
5․	The contest before the Court was thus limited to the Association's application in
proceeding lodged on 27 May 2025, requesting that Mr Dhillon be ordered to file a
statement of claim pursuant to r 39(2)(d) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the
CPR). The court is empowered by that rule to order the plaintiff to file and serve a
statement of claim, where it considers that proceedings either should have been started
by originating claim or may more conveniently continue as if started by originating claim.

Kinds of originating process

6․	The rules provide two vehicles for the commencement of a civil proceeding: either an
originating application or an originating claim. The default position under the rules is that
unless a territory law requires, or allows a proceeding to be started by originating
application, then it should be started by originating claim: r 33(2) of the CPR. A relevant
point of procedural difference between the two forms of proceeding is that where a
proceeding is commenced by originating claim, a statement…

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 Millard v Collins 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: [2021] ACTSC 216
Decision Date: 30 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Millard v Collins involved a legal application brought by the plaintiff, Millard, against the defendant, Collins, seeking an order to compel the defendant to file a statement of claim. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought judicial intervention to expedite the litigation process. The primary dispute centered on whether the court should exercise its discretionary power to direct the defendant to file a statement of claim within a specified timeframe, given the delay in doing so.

The court was tasked with determining whether the delay in filing the statement of claim was justified and whether the defendant's failure to do so warranted an order compelling compliance. The legal issues included the proper exercise of the court's discretion under the relevant rules of court and the balance between the need for expeditious litigation and the protection of a party's procedural rights. The court had to assess the factors relevant to the delay and whether an order should be made to enforce compliance with the procedural rules.

The court found that the delay in filing the statement of claim was not adequately justified, and the defendant's failure to comply with the procedural requirements warranted the exercise of the court's discretion. The court considered the impact of the delay on the plaintiff, the defendant's reasons for the delay, and the principles of just and expeditious disposal of cases. Ultimately, the court concluded that it was appropriate to order the defendant to file the statement of claim within a set period to ensure the litigation process proceeded efficiently. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the court's role in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [19]

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.