Qasim v Davidson - [2022] NSWSC 883

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Qasim v Davidson [2022] NSWSC 883
Hearing dates: 04 July 2022
Date of orders: 04 July 2022
Decision date: 04 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
See [45]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary disposal — dismissal of proceedings — no reasonable cause of action disclosed — frivolous and vexatious proceedings — abuse of process
CIVIL PROCEDURE — parties — vexatious litigants — party referred to the Prothonotary to consider whether proceedings should be brought under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 13.4, 14.28
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008

Cases Cited:
A v The Department of Communities and Justice [2021] NSWSC 937
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Perera v Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Pty Ltd (2017) 94 NSWLR 83; [2017] NSWCA 19
Qasim v Bird [2022] NSWSC 258

Texts Cited:
Not applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Shaheen Qasim (P)
Alan Davidson (D1)
Virginia Mace (D2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self-Represented (P)
G Edwards (D1)
B Burke (D2)
Solicitors:
Priest Legal (D1)
Baker Love Lawyers (D2)

File Number(s): 2022/13595
Publication restriction: Not applicable

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Summons

The plaintiff commenced proceedings in this Court by filing a Summons on 17 January 2022. Given the nature of the claim, so far as can be deciphered, it is unclear why the plaintiff has commenced proceedings by a Summons. Such a form and method of commencing proceedings does not comply with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (“UCPR”). That non-compliance can be put to one side for the moment.
The plaintiff claims against the first defendant, Mr Alan Davidson, the sum of $55,000. She claims against the second defendant, Ms Virginia Mace, the sum of $60,000.
As against the first defendant, she pleads the following words:

“Alan Davidson caused enormous distress to all my tenants. Resulting in losses caused by the behaviours of defendant. As confirmed below with provable facts against the defendant one.”

Insofar as the Summons set out a claim against the second defendant it says:

“Defendant two, Ms Mace, has engaged in alleged misconduct against the plaintiff and all other owners. It’s important she replies to the summons. She should be held accountable.”

The Summons barely makes sense. In an effort to try and identify the plaintiff’s case at its highest, it appears to me that the plaintiff seems to allege the following. First, that the first defendant caused enormous distress to the plaintiff’s tenants, resulting in losses to the plaintiff. Secondly, that the first defendant gave a scam reference to a tenant of the plaintiff and lied in his reference to cause distress and loss to the plaintiff. Thirdly, that the first defendant is discourteous, very dishonest and has caused great disharmony. Fourthly, that the second defendant has engaged in alleged misconduct against the plaintiff, this being constituted by the assertion that she lied about the involvement of the Law Society of New South Wales and the appointment of a…

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 Qasim v Davidson

Details

AGLC: Qasim v Davidson [2022] NSWSC 883
Case: [2022] NSWSC 883
Decision Date: 04 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Qasim initiated proceedings against Davidson, seeking damages for alleged defamatory statements made about him. The court was tasked with determining whether the claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and if not, whether the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. Additionally, the court considered whether Qasim's conduct warranted referral to the Prothonotary under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.

The central legal issues before the court involved assessing whether Qasim's claims against Davidson had any merit and whether the initiation of proceedings was justified. The court examined the content and context of the alleged defamatory statements, Qasim's position as a plaintiff, and the overall conduct of the litigation process. The court also evaluated whether Qasim's actions demonstrated a pattern of vexatious litigation, warranting a referral under the relevant legislation.

The court found that Qasim's claims lacked merit as the alleged defamatory statements were not substantiated and did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. Furthermore, the court concluded that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, given Qasim's history of litigious conduct. The court determined that Qasim's actions constituted an abuse of the legal process, warranting the dismissal of the case. Additionally, the court referred Qasim to the Prothonotary to consider whether future proceedings should be brought under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.

Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings, noting the absence of a reasonable cause of action and the vexatious nature of Qasim's litigation. The court's final order was that the case be dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent, Davidson. Furthermore, the court referred Qasim to the Prothonotary to assess potential future proceedings under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008.

Orders