Rahman v Lombe

[2013] NSWSC 1416

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rahman v Lombe [2013] NSWSC 1416
Hearing dates:	20 September 2013
Decision date:	20 September 2013
Jurisdiction:	Equity Division
Before:	Lindsay J
Decision:	Order for the summary disposal of the proceedings, with costs to be paid out of the plaintiff's bankrupt estate
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE- Summary disposal- Dismissal- Abuse of process- Frivolous and vexatious claim
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW, r 13.4
Cases Cited:	-
Texts Cited:	-
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	MT Rahman (Plaintiff) David Lombe (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: MT Rahman (Plaintiff in person) S Gray (Defendant) Solicitors: Tress Cox Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2013/00179362

Judgment - EX TEMPORE

1. By a notice of motion filed on 23 August 2013, the defendant (Mr DJF Lombe, trustee of the bankrupt estate of the plaintiff) seeks orders (pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW) for summary dismissal of:

(a)   the summons of the plaintiff (Mohammad Tabibar Rahman) filed 12 June 2013; and

(b)   the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 26 July 2013.

1. Both documents are incomprehensible.

1. The plaintiff's basic complaint (a complaint that lies at the heart of all other complaints) is that he disputes the validity of a sequestration order made by the Federal Magistrates' Court on 19 July 2012 that declared him bankrupt.

1. He has unsuccessfully challenged the validity of that order in the Federal Court of Australia and in the High Court of Australia.

1. On 13 March 2013 the High Court dismissed his application for special leave to appeal.

1. The present proceedings must be characterised as an abuse of the processes of the court on three bases. First, they seek to re-litigate an issue previously litigated to finality in the Federal Court and the High Court. Secondly, they disclose no reasonable cause of action or claim to relief. Thirdly, they are frivolous and vexatious.

1. An opportunity has been given to the plaintiff in the course of the hearing of the present notice of motion to adduce evidence and make submissions. That opportunity has been taken up, inter alia, in the form of written submissions handed up to the court and the tender of a bundle of documents.

1. Neither the submissions nor the evidentiary material can reasonably be taken as elaborating any form of relief independent of, or going beyond, the plaintiff's challenge to the sequestration order made against him.

1. Accordingly, I order that the proceedings (including the plaintiff's notice of motion filed on 26 July 2013) be dismissed.

1. I order that the costs of the proceedings (including the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 26 July 2013), and including the costs of the defendant's notice of motion filed 23 August 2013, be paid out of the bankrupt estate of the plaintiff.

1. In related proceedings (numbered 2013/00227522), which are also in today's list, I make the following notations:

(1)   Note that there is no subsisting application for relief made in these proceedings.

(2)   Note that, unless and until some application is made for relief in the proceedings, the proceedings are to be taken as having been determined and the file of the court is, until further order, to be treated as "closed".

1. The related proceedings concern the lodgement of caveats by the current defendant on the title to land (registered in the name of the current plaintiff) in which an interest in the land is claimed as trustee in bankruptcy. The caveats are subsisting.

**********

Decision last updated: 26 September 2013