Legal Research
Cases
Singh v Harrowell

Singh v Harrowell

Case [2023] NSWSC 420 24 April 2023

Abuse of Process

Vexatious Proceedings

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Singh v Harrowell & Ors [2023] NSWSC 420
Hearing dates: 13 February and 3 April 2023
Date of orders: 24 April 2023
Decision date: 24 April 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Proceedings permanently stayed; interlocutory order made of the Court’s own motion restraining further steps in proceedings (including appeal) without leave

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Striking out or permanent stay — Abuse of process — Vexatious proceedings — No issues of principle

Legislation Cited:
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Vexatious Proceedings Act2008 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ansett Transport Industries (Operation) Pty Ltd v Australian Federation of Air Pilots (No 2) [1991] 2 VR 636
Attorney-General for New South Wales v Agarsky (1986) 6 NSWLR 38
Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464
Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1982) 2 NSWLR 937
Burton v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (2019) 100 NSWLR 734; [2019] NSWCA 245
Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd [2014] AC 366; [2013] UKPC 17
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
Durack v Gassior (High Court of Australia, 13 April 1981 unrep)
Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hassan v Iemma [2008] NSWSC 1476
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23
Khan v Singh [2021] FCCA 950
Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) [1982] AC 173
Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551
Mannigel v Hewlett Phelps [1991] NSWCA 186
Moubarak by his tutor Coorey v Holt (2019) 100 NSWLR 218; [2019] NSWCA 102
Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307
Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin (2017) 248 FCR 311; [2017] FCAFC 59
Penthouse Publications Ltd v McWilliam (Court of Appeal (NSW),14 March 1991, unrep)
Rajski v Powell (1987) 11 NSWLR 522
Reichel v Magrath (1889) 14 App Cas 665
Samootin v Shea [2010] NSWCA 371
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 127
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 111
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 34
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAP 11
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd, in the matter of Singh [2020] FCA 886
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd, in the matter of Singh [2021] FCAFC 14
Singh v Khan; Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 485
Singh v Singh; Singh v RCMO Pty Limited; Singh v Sharma; Singh v Murphy; Singh v Armstrong; Singh v Tidball [2023] NSWSC 280
Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118
Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534
Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Gurjit Singh (Plaintiff)
Mark Harrowell (First Defendant)
David Charles (Second Defendant)
Theresa Simon (Third Defendant)
David Goldstein (Fourth…

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 Harrowell

Details

AGLC: Singh v Harrowell [2023] NSWSC 420
Case: [2023] NSWSC 420
Decision Date: 24 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Harrowell involved the plaintiff, Singh, suing the defendant, Harrowell, over alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and unauthorised transactions. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Singh claimed that Harrowell, as a trustee, had breached fiduciary duties by engaging in unauthorised transactions. The defendant sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds of abuse of process, arguing that the proceedings were vexatious and lacked any serious prospect of success.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings were an abuse of process and vexatious, thereby warranting a permanent stay. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff's claims were made in bad faith, without any reasonable prospect of success, and whether the litigation was being used as a means to harass or oppress the defendant. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there were any issues of principle that warranted the case proceeding to trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims were indeed vexatious and amounted to an abuse of process. The evidence indicated that the plaintiff had no reasonable prospect of success and had engaged in the litigation with the intent to harass and oppress the defendant. The court concluded that there were no issues of principle that warranted the case proceeding further, and therefore, the proceedings were struck out with costs awarded to the defendant. The court ordered that the case be permanently stayed, barring any future litigation on the same issues.

Orders