Patel v Shukla - [2022] NSWSC 1644

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Patel v Shukla [2022] NSWSC 1644
Hearing dates: 31 May 2022
Date of orders: 02 December 2022
Decision date: 02 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1)    The Court refuses leave to appeal;
(2)    The Court dismisses the proceedings;
(3)    The plaintiff shall pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.

Catchwords:
APPEALS – from Local Court to Supreme Court on question of law – or with leave on interlocutory judgment and mixed fact and law – extension of time necessary – two years after interlocutory judgment in one case and six-and-a-half months in the other – question of fact, not fact and law – delay not adequately explained – no error – leave refused.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 9, 56, 98
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW), ss 39, 40
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.21

Cases Cited:
Douglas v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 126
Hutchinson v Nominal Defendant [1972] 1 NSWLR 443
Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369; [1938] HCA 7
Re Jarman; ex parte Cook [No 1] (1997) 188 CLR 595; [1997] HCA 13
Wilkshire and Coffey v Commonwealth of Australia (1976) 9 ALR 325

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bhaveshkumar Bhanubhal Patel (Plaintiff)
Alkesh Shukla (First Defendant)
Dilipkumar Chhaganbhai Chauhan (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Advocate:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
V Mishra (First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors:
Unrepresented (Plaintiff)
Redline Legal (First and Second Defendants)

File Number(s): 2021/314151
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

6 December 2019 and 24 May 2021

Before:

Magistrate Denes and Magistrate Robinson

File Number(s):

2019/69823

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: By way of Amended Summons, filed 3 December 2021, the plaintiff seeks to appeal from two decisions of the Local Court. The plaintiff seeks the following orders:

Extension of time to file the summons seeking leave to appeal;

Leave to appeal from the whole of the decision below;

Appeal allowed;

Order 2 of the Local Court of NSW on 6 December 2019 be vacated (being the order that the plaintiff pay the sum of $20,000 as security for costs, and staying the action until such security has been paid);

Orders 1 and 2 of the Local Court of NSW on 24 May 2021 be vacated; and,

The plaintiff’s amended Statement of Claim be reinstated (sic).

Background Facts and History

The plaintiff is Bhaveshkumar Bhanubhal Patel and is a student who travelled from India to study in Australia. The first defendant is Alkesh Shukla, and the second defendant is Dilipkumar Chhaganbhai Chauhan.
The plaintiff alleges that he first met the first defendant in January 2018. The first defendant is alleged to have been a “promoter" for Plus Gold Union Coin (hereinafter PGUC). The plaintiff attended seminars and was visited by the first defendant regarding promoting and selling PGUC cryptocurrency.
The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant asked him to…

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 Patel v Shukla

Details

AGLC: Patel v Shukla [2022] NSWSC 1644
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1644
Decision Date: 02 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Patel v Shukla, the appellant sought to appeal decisions made by the Local Court in two separate matters. The first matter involved an interlocutory judgment, while the second was a final judgment. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the appellant's delay in filing the appeals was justified and whether the appeals should proceed. The appellant argued that the Local Court had erred in its handling of the cases, and the Supreme Court needed to decide whether the appellant's delay in filing the appeals was unreasonable and if the appeals should be dismissed for that reason.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant's significant delay in filing the appeals was justifiable and whether the appeals should be dismissed on the grounds of that delay. The appellant had taken two years to appeal the interlocutory judgment and six-and-a-half months to appeal the final judgment. The court had to consider whether this delay constituted a question of law, fact, or a combination of both, and whether the appellant had adequately explained the reasons for the delay.

The Supreme Court held that the delay in filing the appeals was not adequately explained and that there was no error in the Local Court's decisions. The court determined that the delay was a question of fact, not fact and law, and therefore the appellant's appeals were not justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused the appellant's request for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeals on the basis of the unreasonable delay in filing them. The court found that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in bringing the appeals, and as such, the appeals were not proceeded with.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that the appellant's requests for leave to appeal were refused, and the appeals were dismissed. The court did not find any error in the Local Court's decisions and concluded that the appellant's delay in filing the appeals was not adequately justified. The Supreme Court's decision reinforced the importance of timely filing of appeals and the need for a satisfactory explanation for any significant delays.

Orders