Paramasivam v Wheeler & Ors - [2000] FCA 1559

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Paramasivam v Wheeler [2000] FCA 1559
GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v CHRIS WHEELER (ACTING OMBUDSMAN (NSW)), IRENE MOSS (COMMISSIONER, INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION), LAURIE GLANFIELD, YVONNE GRANT, THE REVEREND HARRY HERBERT, SUZZANE JAMIESON, RUTH McCOLL, PETER RYAN (MEMBERS OF THE OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION)
N 488 OF 2000
GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v THE HONOURABLE DR DAVID KEMP
N 751 OF 2000
GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v THE HONOURABLE JOHN HOWARD
N 752 OF 2000
GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v TOM KARMEL
N 753 OF 2000
GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v BOB SENDT
N 754 OF 2000
GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM v THE HONOURABLE JOHN AQUILINA
N 755 OF 2000
MOORE J
25 OCTOBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 488 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

CHRIS WHEELER (ACTING OMBUDSMAN (NSW)
FIRST RESPONDENT

IRENE MOSS (COMMISSIONER, INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION), LAURIE GLANFIELD, YVONNE GRANT, THE REVEREND HARRY HERBERT, SUZZANE JAMIESON, RUTH McCOLL, PETER RYAN (MEMBERS OF THE OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION)
SECOND RESPONDENTS

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 751 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

THE HONOURABLE DR DAVID KEMP
RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 752 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

THE HONOURABLE JOHN HOWARD
RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 753 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

TOM KARMEL
RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 754 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

BOB SENDT
RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 755 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

THE HONOURABLE JOHN AQUILINA
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 OCTOBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.   The applications in matters N 488 of 2000, N 751 of 2000, N 752 of 2000, N 753 of 2000, N 754 of 2000 and N 755 of 2000 be dismissed.
2.   The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the applications.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 488 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

CHRIS WHEELER (ACTING OMBUDSMAN (NSW)
FIRST RESPONDENT

IRENE MOSS (COMMISSIONER, INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION), LAURIE GLANFIELD, YVONNE GRANT, THE REVEREND HARRY HERBERT, SUZZANE JAMIESON, RUTH McCOLL, PETER RYAN (MEMBERS OF THE OPERATIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION)
SECOND RESPONDENTS

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 751 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

THE HONOURABLE DR DAVID KEMP
RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 752 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
APPLICANT

AND:

THE HONOURABLE JOHN HOWARD
RESPONDENT

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 Paramasivam v Wheeler & Ors

Details

AGLC: Paramasivam v Wheeler & Ors [2000] FCA 1559
Case: [2000] FCA 1559
Decision Date: 25 OCTOBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Paramasivam v Wheeler & Ors involved the applicant, Paramasivam, seeking various reliefs against the respondents, Wheeler and others, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant's claims were related to the administration and distribution of a deceased estate, specifically concerning the executors' actions and decisions. The respondent executors argued against the applicant's claims and sought to have the applicant's applications dismissed.

The primary legal issues before the court were the validity and scope of the applicant's claims, as well as the proper administration of the estate by the respondents. The court had to determine whether the applicant had standing to bring the claims, the merits of the claims themselves, and whether the executors had acted within their powers and in accordance with the law. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant's applications were an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant did not have standing to bring certain claims and that the claims were, in part, an abuse of process. The court emphasised that the applicant's actions were vexatious and that the applications were brought without merit. The court held that the executors had acted properly in the administration of the estate and dismissed the applicant's claims. As a result, the court ordered that the applications be dismissed and that the applicant pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications in matters N 488 of 2000, N 751 of 2000, N 752 of 2000, N 753 of 2000, N 754 of 2000 and N 755 of 2000 be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the applications.

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 488 OF 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 751 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM APPLICANT
AND:	THE HONOURABLE DR DAVID KEMP RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 752 OF 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 753 OF 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 754 OF 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 755 OF 2000