Sims v Suda Ltd (No 2)

Case [2015] FCA 281

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sims v Suda Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 281

Citation: Sims v Suda Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 281
Parties: DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS v SUDA LTD (ACN 090 987 250)
File number: WAD 255 of 2014
Judge: GILMOUR J
Date of judgment: 27 March 2015
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for summary judgment to strike out applicant’s statement of claim under s 31A of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether pleading is an abuse of process – whether the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.21(1), 26.02
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2
Cases cited: Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397
Manolakis v Carter [2008] FCAFC 183
Nyoni v Chee Koon Hee (No. 2) [2013] FCA 703
Oldfield Knott Architects Pty Ltd v Ortiz Investments Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 255
Sims v Chong [2014] FCA 1069
Sims v Jooste QC [2013] WASCA 245
Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WASC 3
Suda Ltd v Sims [2013] FCCA 1833
SZNFR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 851
The Australian Metropolitan Life Assurance Company Ltd v Ure (1923) 33 CLR 199
Underdown (estate of the late Samantha) v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2009) 50 AAR 54
Date of hearing: 3 February 2015
Place: Perth
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 48
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr NC Ebbs
Solicitor for the Respondent: Bennett & Co

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 255 of 2014
BETWEEN:

DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS
Applicant
AND:

SUDA LTD (ACN 090 987 250)
Respondent

JUDGE:

GILMOUR J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 MARCH 2015

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The statement of claim dated 13 August 2014 be struck out pursuant to r 16.21(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and judgment of dismissal be entered for the respondent pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

2.The statement of claim dated 13 August 2014 be removed from the Court file pursuant to r 16.21(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 255 of 2014
BETWEEN:

DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS
Applicant
AND:

SUDA LTD (ACN 090 987 250)
Respondent

JUDGE:

GILMOUR J

DATE:

27 MARCH 2015

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The respondent’s application dated 12 September 2014 seeks orders that:

    (a)the originating application dated 14 August 2014 and the statement of claim dated 13 August 2014 be struck out pursuant to r…

Continue reading Sims v Suda Ltd (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sims v Suda Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 281
Case
[2015] FCA 281
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sims v Suda Ltd (No 2) involved a self-represented applicant who was a former director and employee of the respondent company, Suda Ltd. The applicant, having a history of multiple litigations, sought redress against the company following his resignation in 2009. The respondent applied for summary judgment under section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), arguing that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding and that the statement of claim was an abuse of process. The court was required to determine whether the application should be dismissed and the statement of claim struck out.

The court considered the applicant's extensive history of litigations and noted that while some latitude is afforded to unrepresented litigants, this does not excuse them from procedural requirements. The applicant's attempts to relitigate previously determined disputes and his inability to properly set out his claims were highlighted as significant factors. The court also referenced previous judgments that emphasised the need for litigants to understand the legal basis of their claims and the importance of finality in litigation. The court found that the applicant's claims were not properly formulated and lacked a reasonable prospect of success, thus satisfying the criteria for summary judgment.

In light of the findings, the court granted the respondent's application for summary judgment, striking out the applicant's statement of claim and dismissing the proceeding. The statement of claim was ordered to be removed from the court file, and the applicant was directed to pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis. This decision underscored the court's role in ensuring that litigation is used appropriately and that litigants adhere to procedural requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The statement of claim dated 13 August 2014 be struck out pursuant to r 16.21(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and judgment of dismissal be entered for the respondent pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

2. The statement of claim dated 13 August 2014 be removed from the Court file pursuant to r 16.21(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

By s 31A of the FCA Act the Court has the power to give summary judgment to a party if the Court is satisfied that the party prosecuting the proceedings has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting all or part of the proceedings. Background The respondent is a company, listed on the ASX, formerly known as Eastland Medical Systems Ltd. The applicant is a former director and employee of the respondent. That relationship ended in June 2009 upon his resignation from both positions. Then began a series of legal actions by the applicant against the respondent. The applicant, although self-represented, is well experienced in litigation having commenced at least 40 separate proceedings in his own name in various jurisdictions across Western Australia. Whilst the Court affords some degree of “latitude” to an unrepresented litigant this does not extend to conferring on a litigant a licence to place to one side or to disregard the procedural requirements: Nyoni v Chee Koon Hee (No. 2) [2013] FCA 703 at [4]-[5], citing Underdown (estate of the late Samantha) v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2009) 50 AAR 54 at [17], and SZNFR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 851 at [16]. As the Full Court of the Federal Court observed in Manolakis v Carter [2008] FCAFC 183 at [10]:Courts do not exist to allow self-represented litigants to make scatter-gun claims against all and sundry and to indulge themselves by using proceedings they have instituted as vehicles for what might be seen to be private ‘Royal Commissions’. The applicant has been made aware of the need to properly set out his claims when seeking redress by way of the judicial system. The Court of Appeal in Western Australia in Sims v Jooste QC [2013] WASCA 245 stated at:[17]The appellant, in his oral submissions, said that he wanted ‘justice’. He did not seem to appreciate that justice required a disclosure of the legal basis for a claim put in a form that the respondent and court could understand in order to adjudicate fairly between the parties;. . .[19]If the appellant has genuine causes of action, then it appears that he requires the assistance of a lawyer before they will emerge. This last observation of the Court of Appeal was adopted by the Federal Circuit Court in Suda Ltd v Sims [2013] FCCA 1833 at [73] when determining an application by the respondent in this proceeding to strike out a counterclaim made by the applicant in this proceeding. Moreover, Barker J recently considered and dismissed another related proceeding commenced by the applicant as being an attempt to re-litigate previously determined disputes. In Sims v Chong [2014] FCA 1069 his Honour noted at [36] that:There must be finality in litigation. A litigant cannot take the same cause of action from one court to another when they are unsuccessful in the earlier proceeding. Indeed, in this case, the applicant had the opportunity to lodge a further statement of claim, if he (whether personally or on further legal advice) thought it was possible to do so. He attempted to file an acceptable statement of claim himself but was unsuccessful. The applicant then decided to divert that litigation to this Court and in the guise of an action against his former lawyer. In that regard, the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Rippon v Chilcotin Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 142; (2001) 53 NSWLR 198 provides a good example of how attempts to litigate or relitigate issues decided in other proceedings should not be allowed to go forward.Basis of the application

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.