Qasim v Mitchell [2022] NSWSC 698

Qasim v Mitchell [2022] NSWSC 698

The plaintiffs' summons and submissions described grievances but did not identify any separately justiciable cause of action known to law against the first, second, third or fifth defendants, and the claim seeking dismissal of the District Court proceedings was not maintainable in this Court. Ms Chen was not a proper party because the relevant strata management agreements were with Supreme Strata, a separate corporate entity, and her role as director was insufficient. Any claim against Mr Fowler concerning expert reports prepared for the 2010 proceedings was barred by witness immunity, and no contractual or other basis existed to compel him to prepare a report. The proceedings against the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Summons Seeking Prerogative Writ/other and Related Relief / Defendants' Notices of Motion for Summary Dismissal or Removal as a Party
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed against the first, second, third and fifth defendants; fourth defendant removed as a party; plaintiffs ordered to pay those defendants' costs subject to liberty to apply for different or gross-sum costs orders.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'removal of Parties' 'separate Legal Personality' 'witness Immunity' 'district Court Proceedings' 'costs Following the Event']
['civil Procedure' 'strata Schemes' 'costs'] ['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'removal of Parties' 'separate Legal Personality' 'witness Immunity' 'district Court Proceedings' 'costs Following the Event']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Summons Seeking Prerogative Writ/other and Related Relief / Defendants' Notices of Motion for Summary Dismissal or Removal as a Party

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings against the first, second, third and fifth defendants disclosed a reasonable cause of action or were so untenable that they should be summarily dismissed.' 'Whether the fourth defendant, as a director of Supreme Strata, was improperly or unnecessarily joined and should be removed as a party.' 'Whether this Court could dismiss District Court proceedings commenced by the Owners Corporation against Ms Qasim.' 'Whether claims against Mr Fowler arising from expert reports prepared for earlier proceedings were barred by witness immunity.' 'What costs orders should follow the determination of the notices of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' summons and submissions described grievances but did not identify any separately justiciable cause of action known to law against the first, second, third or fifth defendants, and the claim seeking dismissal of the District Court proceedings was not maintainable in this Court. Ms Chen was not a proper party because the relevant strata management agreements were with Supreme Strata, a separate corporate entity, and her role as director was insufficient. Any claim against Mr Fowler concerning expert reports prepared for the 2010 proceedings was barred by witness immunity, and no contractual or other basis existed to compel him to prepare a report. The proceedings against the...

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed against the first, second, third and fifth defendants; fourth defendant removed as a party; plaintiffs ordered to pay those defendants' costs subject to liberty to apply for different or gross-sum costs orders.

Orders

  • ["In respect of the first defendant's notice of motion filed on 11 November 2021, dismiss the proceedings against the first defendant and, subject to order (6), order the plaintiffs to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings." "In respect of the second defendant's notice of motion filed on 10 December...