Rahman v Dubs - [2012] NSWSC 1065

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rahman v Dubs [2012] NSWSC 1065
Hearing dates: 27/07/20112
Decision date: 13 September 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Proceedings dismissed.
(2) Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - statement of claim manifestly an abuse of process and must be struck out - no reasonable cause of action disclosed - proceedings dismissed
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited: Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale [1908] HCA 57; (1908) 7 CLR 76
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Limited [1983] HCA 25; (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh [1995] HCA 20; (1995) 183 CLR 273
Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 18
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Mohammad Tabibar Rahman (P)
Rosalind Dubs (D1)
John Hartigan (D2)
Shirley Alexander (D3)
Representation: Counsel:
In person (P()
T Maltz (D)

File Number(s): 2009/298024

Judgment

Mr Mohammad Tabibar Rahman commenced proceedings in this Court by filing a summons on 2 November 2009.

He nominated, as the defendant, Ms Rosalind Dubs, whom he claimed was the Registrar of the University of Technology Sydney ("UTS").

So far as it is possible to tell from the terms of this first version of the summons, Mr Rahman claimed relief under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 against a decision of UTS, communicated to him by a letter from the Registrar to exclude him for a period of seven days form the use of the UTS On-line facilities.

Mr Rahman was at that time, enrolled as a post-graduate student in the Faculty of Law at UTS, undertaking a juris doctor course in 2008.

Its seems also that he seeks relief, in this summons, with respect to a further decision of the Deputy Vice Chancellor of UTS communicated to him by the Registrar, the effect of which was to impose a number of conditions upon him, in respect of his on-going attendance at the University.

The relief claimed is stated in the following terms in the summons:

"1. An order in the nature of a prohibition and/or an injunction restraining the Rosalind V Dubs, Registrar, University of Technology Sydney, of unlawful decision of 'alleged Non-academic misconduct by the Applicant which is without salutatory Legal provisions of any statutes of UTS Act or any other enactments made on 9 June 2009 on behalf of :Shirley Alexander, Deputy-vice Chancellor (Teaching and Learning Equity), from acting upon the impinge and infringe the applicant's dignity: under Art 19, Freedom of expression, Art 26 (1) and ((2) Right to education, Art 27 (1) & (2), Art 28 of Covenant Statute of Universal Declaration of…

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 Rahman v Dubs

Details

AGLC: Rahman v Dubs [2012] NSWSC 1065
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1065
Decision Date: 13 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rahman v Dubs was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Rahman, sought to pursue a defamation claim against Dubs, alleging that defamatory statements were made about him. The defendant, Dubs, applied to have the statement of claim struck out, claiming it was an abuse of process and disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was an abuse of process and if a reasonable cause of action was disclosed.

The primary legal issues revolved around the nature and substance of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The court had to consider whether the proceedings were an abuse of the court's process and whether the claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The court examined the content of the statement of claim, the nature of the allegations, and the evidence provided to ascertain if the plaintiff had a viable claim. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim should be upheld.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the plaintiff's statement of claim was an abuse of process and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court noted that the allegations were vague, unsubstantiated, and lacked any factual basis. The plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to support the defamatory claims, and the court concluded that there was no prospect of success for the claim. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim, and the proceedings were dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

Orders