Singh v Tidball

[2023] NSWSC 613

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Singh v Tidball [2023] NSWSC 613

Hearing dates:

1 June 2023

Date of orders:

1 June 2023

Decision date:

01 June 2023

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Beech-Jones CJ at CL

Decision:

(1)   Pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 13.4 the proceedings be dismissed.

(2)   The first applicant, Gurjit Singh, pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings

Catchwords:

Summary dismissal – no question of principle

Legislation Cited:

Supreme Court Act 1969 (NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Singh v Singh [2023] NSWSC 280

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Gurjit Singh (First Plaintiff)
Kiranjit Kaur (Second Plaintiff)
Michael Tidball (First Defendant)
Tracy Hall (Second Defendant)
Umesh Sharma (Third Defendant)
Krishna Sharma (Fourth Defendant)
Michelle Brazel (Fifth Defendant)
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Sixth Defendant)
Sarvjot Singh (Seventh Defendant)
RCMO Pty Ltd (Eighth Defendant)
Narinder Sharma (Ninth Defendant)
Simon Thode (Tenth Defendant)
Patrick Gardner (Eleventh Defendant)
Kim Rosser (Twelfth Defendant)
Robert Titterton (Thirteenth Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Gurjit Singh, in person (Plaintiff)
Mr H Atkin (First Defendant)
Ms C Nguyen (Seventh to Ninth Defendants)

Solicitors:
Mr Gurjit Singh, in person (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (First Defendant)
Wotton + Kearney (Seventh to Ninth Defendants)

File Number(s):

2023/69493

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. On 2 March 2023, a summons was filed in the Court of Appeal in the name of Gurjit Singh trading as Gurjit Singh and Kirajit Kaur, who is Mr Singh's wife. The summons named 13 respondents, the first of which is Mr Michael Tidball, the secretary of the Department of Justice. The second is Ms Tracey Hall, the Sheriff of NSW. The third and fourth defendants are Mr and Mrs Sharma, who are the owners of certain residential property. The fifth respondent is the Principal Registrar of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). The Tribunal itself is the sixth respondent. The tenth to thirteenth respondents are Tribunal members and the seventh to ninth respondents are real estate agents associated with the leasing of the premises owned by Mr and Mrs Sharma.

2. As best as can be ascertained, the summons arises out of the dispute that I summarised in Singh v Singh [2023] NSWSC 280 at [3]-[14] (“Singh v Singh”). In that judgment, I noted the effect of previous judgments summarily dismissing claims brought by Mr Singh concerning that dispute and summarily dismissed other proceedings brought by Mr Singh concerning that dispute.

3. The summons filed in the Court of Appeal was remitted to the Common Law Division, although as a Judge of Appeal I could also deal with it if necessary. Amongst other things, it describes the type of claim as one invoking s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1969 (NSW). It seeks various forms of relief, some of which are unintelligible, but the essence of which appears to be attempts to set aside various decisions made by the Tribunal relating to the dispute summarised in Singh v Singh. It also seeks consequential orders restraining the issue of warrants for possession and the Sheriff from acting on those warrants.

4. The grounds specified in the summons are generally unintelligible. They include assertions to the effect that the Tribunal did not act impartially, applied the wrong test and that various notices were invalid. They include what appears to be a baseless claim of racial discrimination.

5. The proceedings have been listed for mention on various occasions. Mr Singh, who has had a number of proceedings in the Court, has not to my understanding appeared since judgment was given in Singh v Singh on 24 March 2023. His name and Ms Kaur's name were called outside Court today and they did not appear. They had been served with a motion filed on behalf of Mr Tidball on 19 May 2023 seeking that the proceedings against him be dismissed. They have also been served with a motion filed on behalf of the seventh to ninth defendants (i.e. the real estate agents) seeking the whole of the proceedings be dismissed.

6. The written submissions in support of Mr Tidball's notice of motion correctly points out that there is nothing in the summons that raises any claim for relief against him or makes any allegation against him. Hence, it is submitted it should be dismissed.

7. The written submissions in support of the real estate agents' notice of motion contends that the proceedings are frivolous and vexatious by reason of a combination of matters to which I return. They also contend that Mr Singh has an insufficient interest in the proceedings to maintain them because he was not a party to the residential tenancy agreement that was in issue with the Tribunal proceedings. They also contend that he lacks standing as he is a bankrupt.

8. It is sufficient to deal with the notice of motion to note that I accept the first of these submissions. This arises by reason of two interrelated aspects. The first is that there is an established means by which an appeal from the Tribunal can be brought into this Division. It does not involve the invoking of the Court's supervisory jurisdiction under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act.

9. The mere fact that someone did invoke that jurisdiction would, of itself, not be sufficient to answer the description of the proceedings being frivolous and vexatious. However, when that is accompanied with the fact that the summons names numerous people, many of whom have no tangible connection to the proceedings, then it starts to acquire a vexatious flavour.

10. The vexatious flavour becomes much more concrete when one examines the grounds to which I have made reference. As I have noted, they are generally unintelligible and, in one respect, contain a baseless but serious allegation.

11. When one steps back from it, it is clear that Mr Singh is simply seeking to re-agitate the same dispute as was addressed in Singh v Singh via a different mechanism in circumstances where a more simple mechanism, which would only involve the truly affected parties, may have been available to a proper party to the residential tenancy agreement.

12. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proceedings should be dismissed pursuant to rule 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 2005 (NSW). It would also follow that Mr Singh should pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings. I note that only Mr Singh has signed the summons. Ms Kaur's signature does not appear on it.

13. I am not persuaded that the proceedings were properly brought in her name. For that reason, I am not presently disposed to make a costs order against her.

14. Accordingly, the orders of the Court are:

1. Pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rule 13.4 the proceedings be dismissed.

2. The first applicant, Gurjit Singh, pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings.

**********

Decision last updated: 14 June 2023