Singh v Khan (No 2)

Case [2021] FCA 463


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Khan (No 2) [2021] FCA 463

File number: NSD 1392 of 2020
Judgment of: STEWART J
Date of judgment: 5 May 2021
Catchwords:

RESTITUTION – claim for money had and received on mistake of law – whether applicant must plead loss or liability to third party – whether that the money recovered would be held by the applicant on constructive trust in favour of a third party can be raised as a defence to a common law claim for money had and received

EQUITY – constructive trust – whether equity imposes constructive trust on the party receiving an overpayment on mistake of law – unconscionability lacking

TAXATION – withholding tax for supplier’s failure to quote a valid ABN – circularity of payment or accounting obligations

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to strike out statement of claim on various grounds – whether reasonable causes of action – whether leave to replead a second time should be given – self-represented litigant

Legislation: Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) Sch 1, ss 12-190, 16-70, 16-75, 16-85
Cases cited:

Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; 164 CLR 137

Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd [1994] HCA 61; 182 CLR 51

David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48; 175 CLR 353

KAP Motors Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 159; 168 FCR 319

Piccone v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2005] FCAFC 260; 148 FCR 437

Re French Caledonia Travel Service Pty Ltd (in liq) [2003] NSWSC 1008; 59 NSWLR 361

Singh v Khan [2021] FCA 140

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Taxation
Number of paragraphs: 33
Date of hearing: 4 May 2021
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: R Brown
Solicitor for the Respondents: McGrath Dicembre & Company

ORDERS

NSD 1392 of 2020
BETWEEN:

GURJIT SINGH

Applicant

AND:

GHULAM AKBAR KHAN

First Respondent

SAMINA KHAN

Second Respondent

FOBUPU PTY LTD

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

STEWART J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 MAY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s statement of claim filed on 29 March 2021 is struck out.

2.The proceeding is dismissed as against the first and second respondents.

3.The applicant has leave to file a new statement of claim by 31 May 2021 to plead a money had and received claim against the third respondent for monies overpaid for the rent of premises at 8 Bringelly Road, Kingswood, in the period February 2012 to November 2017.

4.Costs are reserved.

5.The matter is listed on 3 June 2021, or such other date as the parties may arrange with the associate to Stewart J, for further case management and oral submissions on the costs reserved on 24 February 2021 and today.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STEWART J:

  1. On 24 February 2021, I struck…

Continue reading Singh v Khan (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Singh v Khan (No 2) [2021] FCA 463
Case
[2021] FCA 463
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Khan (No 2) involved a claim by the applicant, Mr Singh, for restitution of monies paid under a mistake of law. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court, where Mr Singh sought to recover sums paid for rent on a property in Kingswood. The respondents included individuals and entities that were or had been associated with the property. The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr Singh's claim for money had and received on the basis of a mistake of law required him to plead a loss or liability to a third party, and if the argument that the money recovered would be held by him on a constructive trust in favour of a third party could be raised as a defence to his claim. The court also considered the applicability of a constructive trust in the context of an overpayment made under a mistake of law and the circumstances under which withholding tax might apply due to a supplier's failure to quote a valid ABN.

The court addressed the applicant's procedural application to strike out the statement of claim, examining the reasonableness of the causes of action and whether leave should be granted for a second amendment. The applicant, appearing self-represented, was given leave to replead his claim against the third respondent, with a specific focus on the money had and received claim regarding the overpaid rent. The court dismissed the proceeding against the first and second respondents, while striking out the initial statement of claim. The court found that there was no unconscionability in the applicant's receipt of the overpayment, and hence no basis for imposing a constructive trust. Additionally, the court did not find merit in the argument that withholding tax should apply due to the circularity of payment or accounting obligations.

The final orders of the court included the striking out of the applicant's initial statement of claim and dismissal of the proceeding against the first and second respondents. The applicant was granted leave to file a new statement of claim by a specified date, focusing on the money had and received claim against the third respondent. Costs were reserved, and the matter was listed for further case management and oral submissions on reserved costs and other matters. The decision highlighted the procedural and substantive requirements for claims based on a mistake of law and the limited circumstances in which a constructive trust might be imposed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s statement of claim filed on 29 March 2021 is struck out.

2. The proceeding is dismissed as against the first and second respondents.

3. The applicant has leave to file a new statement of claim by 31 May 2021 to plead a money had and received claim against the third respondent for monies overpaid for the rent of premises at 8 Bringelly Road, Kingswood, in the period February 2012 to November 2017.

4. Costs are reserved.

5. The matter is listed on 3 June 2021, or such other date as the parties may arrange with the associate to Stewart J, for further case management and oral submissions on the costs reserved on 24 February 2021 and today.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.