Apartment Holdings Pty Ltd v Jaswant Singh Chahl (No 2)

HIS HONOUR: This matter comes before me today in my capacity as Duty Judge by way of a notice of motion filed by Craig Thomas on 3 March 2026. Mr Thomas is not a party to the proceedings but seeks an order under r 6.27 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) that he be joined to the proceedings.

The background to the matter is set out in the judgment of Campbell J in Apartment Holdings Pty Limited v Chahl [2025] NSWSC 1453. On 14 November 2025, his Honour struck out the defence, ordered the plaintiffs have summary judgment and granted leave to the plaintiffs to issue a writ of possession in respect of the property.

The proceedings thus involved a claim by the plaintiffs as mortgagees for judgment against the defendants, as owners of the property, and possession. As I have said, the Court has already ordered that there be judgment and leave to grant a writ of possession. Prior to those orders being made, indeed in April 2025, Mr Thomas was served with a Notice to Occupier containing the appropriate warnings and requirements.

Prior to the hearing today, I received a substantial volume of material from Mr Thomas. He appears by AVL from his home. Mr Rogers of counsel appears for the plaintiffs, as he has on earlier occasions.

Mr Thomas says today that he is a person who suffers from a disability (the nature of which is unclear), that he has not worked since approximately 2020, and that he receives, as I understand it, the sole parent’s benefit for the purposes of caring for his three-year-old-child.

The essential point raised by Mr Thomas is that there are, he says, nine people living in the house which is the subject of the proceedings including his three-year-old child. He says that none of the other persons, that is the other eight persons, were served with a Notice to Occupier. Of course, that includes his three-year-old child. He identifies six of the people as being non-family members. It is notable that none of those other six people are present at the hearing.

Mr Thomas submits that there is a statutory declaration from one of those other people, a Mr Barnett, to the same effect. However, he is not here today.

I also note that during the course of this hearing, Mr Thomas declined on a regular basis to answer questions and has thus far interrupted this ex tempore judgment twice to seek to challenge things which I have said.

I asked Mr Thomas the reason why he sought an order under r 6.27 of the UCPR. He identified the reason as being that the Supreme Court needs to supervise or step in due to the, as I understand it, procedural failures of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“NCAT”) in dealing with his application under s 125 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (“Residential Tenancies Act”). As I understand it, he believes that the Supreme Court should be intervening in NCAT’s proceedings to ensure that they carry out proper procedures.

As is evident from his notice of motion, he also seeks a stay of the writ of possession.

These proceedings have been on foot since early 2025. The orders were made by Campbell J in November 2025. In December 2025, there was a preliminary hearing in NCAT. The final hearing of Mr Thomas’ s 125 application was set for 5 February 2026. The original writ of possession issued on behalf of the plaintiffs was deferred. The Sheriff is now due to execute that writ on 6 March 2026.

Importantly, the proceedings pursued by Mr Thomas in NCAT seeking orders under s 125 of the Residential Tenancies Act were dismissed by NCAT on 5 February 2026. They were dismissed for two reasons:

The essential point made by Mr Thomas, being one that he has emphasised and repeated, is that he asserts that the NCAT proceedings were infected by the misconduct, perjury and misrepresentations of the legal representatives of the plaintiff, and further that, as he said, infected by the misconduct and failures of those who work at NCAT to deal properly with his matter. I took him to be meaning not only the Member who determined the matter, but also registry staff.

He says that the Supreme Court needs to intervene to ensure that the procedural collapse of NCAT is rectified. He also wants to be joined as a party to these proceedings so he can obtain a stay of the writ of possession, and then so he can be given an opportunity to adduce all his evidence as to the misconduct of the legal representatives of the plaintiff, and indeed those persons at NCAT. Of course, I have not seen that evidence. No evidence has been put before me of misconduct or perjury by the legal representatives of the plaintiff. I apprehend Mr Thomas wants further time to establish that.

One of the central issues which he wishes to pursue is the idea that he has prepaid rent of over $80,000, and that is not being accounted for. I apprehend that he asserts that the plaintiffs have, in some way, hidden the information or failed to disclose documents or not disclosed that information to NCAT. When I raised with him why the plaintiffs would be in receipt of that money rather than the defendants, being the persons with whom he had a lease, he was unable to satisfactorily explain why the plaintiffs would have received that money or have documents evidencing payments to a lessor, as the plaintiffs were not the lessor.

In any event, irrespective of all of these matters, the threshold question is whether I should grant leave to Mr Thomas to be joined as a party to the proceedings for the purposes of pursuing orders in these proceedings.

I am not satisfied that there is any basis for Mr Thomas to be joined to the proceedings. He has rights in NCAT which he may have already exercised.

Mr Thomas says he is a tenant and he has an ability to pursue those rights in NCAT, should they still exist. I do not accept his stated explanation as to why he should be joined as a party to the proceedings and, in those circumstances, the notice of motion is dismissed.

The plaintiffs seek costs. Mr Thomas objects to paying costs on the basis that Mr Rogers has been misleading the Court and his solicitors have been misleading the Court. The motion was filed by Mr Thomas. It was necessary that the plaintiffs appear. Mr Thomas has been unsuccessful in his application. In these circumstances, costs follow the event.

Therefore, I make the following orders: