Mohammad Tabibar Rahman v Peter Blair

MOHAMMAD TABIBAR RAHMAN
v
PETER BLAIR & ORS
[2015] HCASL 210
S31/2015

On 10 February 2014, a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Adams J) ordered, pursuant to the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW), that the applicant be prohibited from instituting proceedings in New South Wales without leave of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. His Honour's reasons for judgment have the medium neutral citation: [2014] NSWSC 42.
On 18 December 2014, the applicant filed a summons in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Matter 2014/371482, seeking leave to institute a proceeding in New South Wales.
On 13 March 2015, a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Garling J) ordered that the applicant's application for leave to institute proceedings be dismissed. Garling J's reasons for judgment have the medium neutral citation: [2015] NSWSC 164.
By this application, which was filed in this Court on 5 March 2015, the applicant seeks an order pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) that the whole of proceeding 2014/371482 be removed to this Court. He also seeks a range of further or other relief including a declaration that the sequestration order by which he was made a bankrupt was "not Constitutionally permissible on the ground that neither the Commonwealth Constitution nor the States have Constitutional power to confer State Jurisdiction on Federal Court, as it is outside the Legislative powers of the Parliament".
The orders of Garling J which were made on 13 March 2015 put an end to proceeding 2014/371482 and, therefore, there is no longer any proceeding to remove to this Court. For that reason, the application for its removal is incompetent. The idea that the sequestration order was unconstitutional is equally misconceived and is devoid of merit. The application does not raise an arguable constitutional issue.
Pursuant to rr 26.06.3 and 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

G.A.A. Nettle
11 November 2015 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mohammad Tabibar Rahman sought to challenge a sequestration order made against him and a decision by Garling J to dismiss his application for leave to institute proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for consideration of its jurisdiction and the constitutionality of the sequestration order. The High Court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case and whether the sequestration order was constitutionally valid.

The High Court found that the application for the removal of the proceeding to the High Court was incompetent as the orders of Garling J had already put an end to the proceeding. Additionally, the Court dismissed the argument that the sequestration order was unconstitutional, stating that the application did not raise an arguable constitutional issue. The High Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the application was devoid of merit.

The High Court dismissed the application and ordered that the Registrar draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs, pursuant to rr 26.06.3 and 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The Court did not find any arguable constitutional issue in the sequestration order and found no basis to question the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in the matter. The High Court's decision effectively put an end to the applicant's attempts to challenge the sequestration order and the decision of Garling J.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established