Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman (No 2) - [2024] NSWSC 441

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 441
Hearing dates: 19 April 2024
Decision date: 19 April 2024
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
(1) Note that His Honour’s Associate will contact the parties on Monday 22 April 2024 with available dates for a hearing of the plaintiff’s case in chief; once the hearing date is known, stand over the defendants’ Notices of Motion filed 1 and 5 February 2024 to that date; (2) Note that, once a date for such hearing is set, the Court will make directions for: (a) the defendants to file and serve a Commercial List Response in which they will, if so advised, assert an entitlement to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination and, in that event, not be required to admit or deny the allegations in the Commercial List Statement; (b) the plaintiff to serve its evidence in chief and to give discovery; (3) Note that if the defendants, in their List Response, invoke reliance on the privilege against self-incrimination: (a) the defendants will not, prior to the hearing of the plaintiff’s case in chief, be required to serve any evidence or give discovery; (b) the defendants will be required, at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case in chief, to inform the Court whether they wish to make an application under UCPR r 29.9 that the plaintiff’s case be dismissed or whether, rather, they wish to adduce evidence in response to the plaintiff’s case; (c) the Court will then consider what steps should be taken in relation to the defendants’ Notices of Motion of 1 and 5 February 2024 and in relation to the fixing for hearing the balance of the proceedings; (4) Costs of today of the defendants’ Notices of Motion filed 1 and 5 February 2024 are costs in the cause

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – stay of proceedings – concurrent civil and criminal proceedings – prejudice to the defendants – whether defendants may be permitted to decline to admit or deny allegations in the Commercial List Statement

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman [2024] NSWSC 440

Texts Cited:
Practice Note SC EQ 3

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Telstra Limited (Plaintiff)
Qarttullah Sulaiman (First Defendant)
Azatullah Sulaiman (Second Defendant)
Khalida Sulaiman (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Tam (Plaintiff)
C Parkin (First Defendant)
H Donaldson (Second and Third Defendants)
Solicitors:
King & Wood Mallesons (Plaintiff)
Cambridge Law (First Defendant)
Republic Lawyers (Second and Third Defendants)

File Number(s): 2023/448786

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

The background to these proceedings is set out in the judgment that I gave a moment ago.^[1]
1. Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman [2024] NSWSC 440.
At or around the time these proceedings were commenced, criminal proceedings were commenced against each of the defendants.
Each of the defendants is charged with offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Each is charged with dishonestly gaining a financial advantage…

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 Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Telstra Ltd v Sulaiman (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 441
Case: [2024] NSWSC 441
Decision Date: 19 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between Telstra Ltd and Sulaiman. The nature of the dispute was centred around the conduct of concurrent civil and criminal proceedings and the potential prejudice this may cause to the defendants. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction over the matter due to its commercial nature. The defendants sought a stay of the civil proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings, arguing that they would be prejudiced if required to admit or deny allegations in the Commercial List Statement of Claim.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants could be permitted to decline to admit or deny allegations in the Commercial List Statement of Claim without incurring a disadvantage in the civil proceedings. The legal issues revolved around the principles of fairness and the protection of the defendants' rights in the context of concurrent civil and criminal proceedings. The court had to balance the interests of the parties, including the rights of the defendants to a fair trial and the public interest in the expeditious resolution of disputes.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases, such as Perron v Costa and Telstra Ltd v Singh. It concluded that the defendants were entitled to decline to admit or deny allegations in the Commercial List Statement of Claim without incurring a disadvantage in the civil proceedings. The court held that the defendants' rights to a fair trial in the criminal proceedings should not be compromised by requiring them to make admissions or denials in the civil proceedings. The court further found that the defendants would be prejudiced if they were forced to address the allegations in the civil proceedings before the criminal proceedings had been concluded.

In light of its findings, the court granted the defendants' application for a stay of the civil proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. This decision ensures that the defendants' rights to a fair trial are protected and that there is no prejudice caused by the requirement to address allegations in both sets of proceedings. The court's ruling provides clarity on the issue of concurrent civil and criminal proceedings and the rights of defendants in such situations.

Orders