Singh v Sharma; Singh v Energy Services Management Pty Ltd t/as Glow Power; Singh v Harrowell; Singh v Cavanagh; Singh v Tidball; Singh v Charles; Singh v Street

1. [1]

   (Revised from transcript)

Re Proceedings 2022/00196452 – Gurjit Singh v Narinder Sharma & Ors

1. [2]

   On 24 March 2023, I published reasons in Singh v Singh [2023] NSWSC 280 (“Singh v Singh”). That judgment concerned a number of proceedings that had been commenced by Mr Gurjit Singh against various defendants. One set of proceedings, being proceedings 2022/00196452, had an additional plaintiff, being Ms Kiranjit Khaur. I ordered that those proceedings be dismissed against certain defendants, that the balance of the statement of claim be struck out and that Mr Singh's claim be dismissed. This left the possibility that Ms Khaur might be able to formulate a pleading in proper form. To that end, I stood the proceedings over TO today to determine whether the proceedings would be dismissed or whether she might be granted leave to file an amended statement of claim.

2. [3]

   Since the time of the judgment, no steps have been taken on Ms Kaur’s behalf to formulate a pleading or otherwise pursue the matter. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to order that the proceedings be dismissed.

Proceedings No 2022/00185767 – Gurjit Singh v Energy Services Management Pty Ltd t/as Glow Power

1. [4]

   On 24 March 2023, I ordered that the proceedings No 2022/00185767 against various defendants be dismissed and that the statement of claim be otherwise struck out. I left open the possibility that Ms Khaur might serve on the State of New South Wales a proposed amended statement of claim. I stood over until today the question as to whether leave might be granted to file that statement of claim or whether the proceedings would be dismissed (Singh v Singh at [77]). No proposed amended statement of claim was filed nor was any other step taken on behalf of Ms Kaur.

2. [5]

   Accordingly, I order that the proceedings be dismissed.

Proceedings 2023/00044063 – Gurjit Singh v Richard Cavanagh

1. [6]

   In proceedings number 2023/00044063, the plaintiff, Mr Gurjit Singh, has filed a statement of claim naming five defendants. The first two defendants are Judges of the Common Law Division of this Court. The third defendant is the Chief Justice of New South Wales. The named fourth defendant is the former Premier of New South Wales and the named fifth defendant is the current Prime Minister of Australia.

2. [7]

   To the extent that the statement of claim is in any way intelligible, it is clear that the proceedings against the first two defendants, that is, the two judges of the Common Law Division, make complaint about decisions they have made in a judicial capacity. The pleading also asserts that the Chief Justice has been “negligent” in the administration of this Court and thus somehow bears responsibility for the decisions of the two Judges complained of. In respect of the former Premier and the Prime Minister, it is simply pleaded that they are the "Executive Head" of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia respectively, whatever that means.

3. [8]

   The first four defendants filed a notice of motion which, amongst other matters, sought summary dismissal. The Commonwealth of Australia filed a motion seeking leave to be substituted for the fifth defendant and the summary dismissal or strikeout of the proceedings.

4. [9]

   It is unnecessary to describe all the ways in which the proceedings are misconceived. It is sufficient to note that the first two defendants clearly have judicial immunity in respect of their decisions as judicial officers and that the Chief Justice has a similar or analogous immunity in respect of his Honour’s administration of the Court (see Singh v Charles [2022] NSWSC 743; Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW), s 44A).

5. [10]

   As for the former Premier and current Prime Minister, a simple assertion that they are the "Executive Head" of New South Wales and the Commonwealth, whatever that means, does not amount to a cause of action.

6. [11]

   Accordingly, it is appropriate to give summary judgment in favour of the first three defendants and to strike out the proceedings in respect of the former Premier and the current Prime Minister. Moreover, given that the pleading is otherwise unintelligible and appears to be vexatious, it is appropriate not to grant leave to re‑plead. Instead, I will dismiss the proceedings.

Proceedings 2021/00328613 – Gurjit Singh v David Charles

1. [12]

   In proceedings 2021/00328613, the plaintiff Gurjit Singh filed a statement of claim on 18 November 2021 naming three defendants: David Charles, Vinita Lekhawar and Keshavnanda Lekhawar. As best as I can ascertain, the statement of claim made various complaints about a retail tenancy involving the second and third defendants. It also sued the first defendant, who is a member of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

2. [13]

   On 30 March 2022, Garling J made an order dismissing the proceedings against the first defendant as a consequence of a motion filed on behalf of the first defendant seeking that relief (Singh v Charles [2022] NSWSC 743).

3. [14]

   Since then, what has been left is the balance of proceedings against the second and third defendants, who have not taken any active part in the proceedings. As best as I can tell, the only substantive step that has been taken is that the plaintiff filed a notice of motion seeking summary judgment.

4. [15]

   The only course the Court can take in the face of what is inaction, is to list the matter on a date when these matters will be otherwise returning, namely 1 June 2023, for the parties to show cause why the proceedings should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

5. [16]

   Accordingly, these proceedings will be listed before me at 9.30 on 1 June 2023 for the parties to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Proceedings 2022/00247788 – Gurjit Singh v Alexander Whistler Street

1. [17]

   In proceedings number 2022/00247788, the plaintiff, Gurjit Singh, filed a statement of claim naming three defendants. The first defendant is a Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). The second defendant is a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The third defendant is a Manager of Costs Assessment.

2. [18]

   As best as could be ascertained, the background appears to be that the first defendant made a sequestration order based upon a costs assessment made by the third defendant. There was an appeal of that order to the Federal Court. The second defendant made various orders in the case management of that appeal to which the plaintiff took objection.

3. [19]

   The statement of claim is discursive and embarrassing in form.

4. [20]

   The Commonwealth of Australia has applied for summary judgment in respect of the first and second defendants on the basis that they have judicial immunity. Consistent with Singh v SinghI, that contention must be upheld and summary judgment granted.

5. [21]

   In relation to the Manager of Costs Assessment, there are two matters that appear to make it overwhelmingly likely that the proceedings are also misconceived. The first is that the Manager of Costs Assessment has a statutory protection of liability, which appears to extend to a damages action for any act or omission done or omitted in good faith and in the administration of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) (s 93F). One could speculate that the plaintiff's answer to that is the numerous unparticularised allegations of bad faith throughout the statement of claim, however, that only exemplifies the difficulty with the pleading.

6. [22]

   The second reason that the proceedings are most likely misconceived is the fact that, as a bankrupt, the action appears to have vested in his trustee who does not show any interest in pursuing it (see Singh v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2022] NSWSC 78 at [22ff]). The only potential residual doubt I have about that contention is that some of the arguably intelligible aspects of the statement of claim make references to emotional distress and mental harm such that there may be a skerrick of an argument that this is a cause of action that did not vest upon his bankruptcy.

7. [23]

   It is unnecessary to consider this further because, consistent with what I said in Singh v Singh, there is no reason not to hold this plaintiff to the requirement of clearly pleading a cause of action, especially where allegations of bad faith are made. The pleading does not properly articulate any cause of action against anyone, including the third defendant. Given its generally vexatious nature, there is no reason whatsoever to allow liberty to re-plead.

8. [24]

   Orders

9. [25]

   Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:

10. [26]

    In Proceedings 2022/00196452 – Gurjit Singh v Narinder Sharma & Ors