Singh v Gleeson - [2023] NSWSC 629

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Singh v Gleeson [2023] NSWSC 629
Hearing dates: 18 May 2023
Date of orders: 18 May 2023
Decision date: 18 May 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
See [68]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary dismissal of proceedings — joinder of appropriate defendants — abuse of process — vexatious proceedings — scandalous allegations — summary dismissal of proceedings ordered

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
D'Orta-Ekanaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
Huang v Attapallil (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1382
Leerdam v Noori (2009) 255 ALR 553
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 886
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 14
Singh v Khan [2023] FCA 76

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gurjit Singh (P)
Gleeson J (D1)
Official Receiver Australian Financial Services Authority (D2)
Anzer Khan (D3)
Jeremy Mackenzie (D4)
Elliot Hyde (D5)
Cathy Szczygielski (D6)
Colvin J (D7)
Anthony Albanese (D8)
Dominic Perrottet (D9)
Commonwealth of Australia (Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
No appearance (P)
V Thomas (D1, D2, D7, Applicant)
E A J Hyde (D3, D4)
T E O’Brien (D5)
R Lee (D6, D9)
No appearance (D8)
Solicitors:
Australian Government Solicitor (D1, D2, D7, Applicant)
Mills Oakley (D3, D4)
Sparke Helmore (D5)
Crown Solicitor (NSW) (D6, D9)

File Number(s): 2023/30478
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

Common Law Division Supreme Court

NSW

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

On 11 February 2023, the plaintiff, Mr Gurjit Singh, filed an Amended Statement of Claim consisting of 29 pages in which he named nine defendants as parties to the proceedings brought against him.

The relevant Notices of Motion

Before the Court today are a series of Notices of Motion in which relief is sought for different reasons by different parties with respect to the Amended Statement of Claim.
So far as the first, second and seventh defendants are concerned, relief is sought by an Amended Notice of Motion filed on 27 April 2023 (“the Commonwealth Motion”) by way of summary dismissal of the claims against those defendants pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (“UCPR”) or, in the alternative, that the whole of the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out. Consequential orders for costs are also made.
The Commonwealth Motion also seeks an order that the eighth defendant be removed from the proceedings pursuant to r 6.29 of the UCPR and, further, that the Commonwealth of Australia be joined to the proceedings as the eighth defendant pursuant to r 6.24 of the UCPR.
Accordingly, counsel for the first, second and seventh defendants seeks leave to appear for the Commonwealth of Australia as well in respect of the orders which it seeks in the Commonwealth Motion.
The third and fourth defendants move on a Notice of Motion dated 3 April 2023 seeking orders that the proceedings be summarily dismissed as against them, or…

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 Singh v Gleeson

Details

AGLC: Singh v Gleeson [2023] NSWSC 629
Case: [2023] NSWSC 629
Decision Date: 18 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Gleeson involved a plaintiff who sought to enforce a settlement agreement reached during mediation. The defendant, Gleeson, denied the existence of the agreement and counterclaimed that the proceedings were an abuse of process and vexatious. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had joined the appropriate defendants in the proceedings and whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and were vexatious.

The court considered whether the settlement agreement was binding and enforceable. Gleeson argued that the agreement was not binding as it had not been signed by all parties involved. The court also examined whether the proceedings were an abuse of process and vexatious, given the scandalous allegations made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that Gleeson had engaged in fraudulent conduct, which the court found to be scandalous and not supported by evidence. The court held that the proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process due to the scandalous allegations and the lack of evidence to support them.

Consequently, the court ordered the summary dismissal of the plaintiff's proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to join the appropriate defendants and had made scandalous allegations without evidence. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that proceedings are not an abuse of process and that scandalous allegations are supported by evidence. The dismissal of the proceedings was justified as the plaintiff had acted vexatiously and abused the legal process.

Orders