Re Singh

[2012] FCA 322

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh, In the matter of [2012] FCA 322

Citation:		Singh, In the matter of [2012] FCA 322
Parties:		MOHINDER SINGH
File number:		VID 236 of 2012
Judge:		NORTH J
Date of judgment:		26 March 2012
Date of hearing:	26 March 2012
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	8
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 236 of 2012

BETWEEN: MOHINDER SINGH
Applicant

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:	26 MARCH 2012
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.The Registrar not to accept the documents for filing under r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.  

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 236 of 2012

BETWEEN: MOHINDER SINGH
Applicant

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE:	26 MARCH 2012
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 27 July 2011, Bromberg J made an order that Mohinder Singh may not institute any proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia without leave of the Court.  Mr Singh did not institute an appeal against that order within the time limited for an appeal. 

2. On 30 January 2012, Jessup J rejected an application by Mr Singh for an extension of time within which to appeal against the orders made by Bromberg J.  Then on 13 March 2012 Mr Singh lodged three documents with the registry.  The first was headed Application for an Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal, the second was an affidavit in support of that application and the third was a draft Notice of Appeal.

3. In view of the history of Mr Singh’s litigation in the Court set out in [26] to [68] of the judgment of Bromberg J (Singh v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] FCA 833), I directed that Mr Singh should not serve these documents on the proposed respondent, namely the Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, formerly the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, but rather should attend the Court to explain why the application is not an abuse of process and why the Court should not direct the registrar not to accept these documents for filing.

4. Mr Singh provided no grounds in the affidavit in support on which an extension of time should be granted.  First, he provided no explanation for the delay in bringing the application, and second, he proposed an argument on appeal which has no reasonable chance of success. 

5. Mr Singh seeks to argue on the appeal the following:

   Justice Bromberg dismissed my application VID234/2010 as a vexatious proceeding.  In Order 1 of matter number VID265/2010, Justice Bromberg states that “The Respondent, Mohinder Singh may not institute ­any proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia without leave of the court”. This order is vague and does not reflect the intention of the Court because according to both the new rules and Order 21 Rule 1 of the old Federal Court Rules, it is stated:
   (a)  that any proceeding instituted by the person may not continued without leave of the Court; and
   (b)  That the person may not institute a proceeding without leave of the Court.
   The term ‘any proceeding’ mentioned by Justice Bromberg is vague and does not relate to any specific proceeding.  Accordingly, unlike the term ‘a proceeding’ mentioned in the rules, Justice Bromberg’s order limits my right or ability to institute any proceeding, whether related to VID234/2010 or not.
   [Emphasis in original]

6. This argument is bound to fail. Thus, even if Mr Singh had provided some explanation for the delay it would not have been appropriate to extend the time in which to appeal.

7. The fact that Jessup J rejected Mr Singh’s last application for an extension of time is a further reason why this application should not be filed.  Mr Singh today contended that he had not raised before Jessup J the proposed ground of appeal and consequently this proposed application is different in a material way to the application before Jessup J.  There is no evidence before me of the grounds upon which Jessup J dismissed the earlier application, nor of the arguments which Mr Singh then raised.  Those deficiencies are, however, immaterial in view of the obvious hopelessness of the proposed ground.

8. It follows that, in order to avoid an abuse of the process, I intend to direct the registrar under r 1.37 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) not to accept these three documents for filing.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.

Associate:

Dated:        23 April 2012