Datta v AAI Limited trading as GIO & Ors [2025] NSWSC 112

Datta v AAI Limited trading as GIO & Ors [2025] NSWSC 112

No reasonable cause of action is disclosed on the pleadings; claims are either manifestly groundless, protected by legal immunity, or seek to relitigate matters already conclusively determined by tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction. To allow them to proceed would amount to an abuse of process and bring the administration of justice into disrepute; therefore, the proceedings must be dismissed.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Mrinal Datta; Second Plaintiff: Raj Ama Tembur; First Defendant: AAI Limited trading as GIO; Second Defendant: Matthew Garling; Third Defendant: Nicole Compton; Fourth Defendant: Joshua Dale; Fifth Defendant: Paul Stockley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (summary Dismissal Application) / Post Hearing, Judgment on Summary Dismissal and Costs
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs against the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Summary Disposal, Abuse of Process, No Reasonable Cause of Action Disclosed, Barristers' Immunity, Workers Compensation, Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Summary Disposal Abuse of Process No Reasonable Cause of Action Disclosed Barristers' Immunity Workers Compensation Jurisdiction

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrinal Datta

First Plaintiff

Raj Ama Tembur

Second Plaintiff

AAI Limited trading as GIO

First Defendant

Matthew Garling

Second Defendant

Nicole Compton

Third Defendant

Joshua Dale

Fourth Defendant

Paul Stockley

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (summary Dismissal Application) / Post Hearing, Judgment on Summary Dismissal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses any reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the Court has any jurisdiction to grant the relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

No reasonable cause of action is disclosed on the pleadings; claims are either manifestly groundless, protected by legal immunity, or seek to relitigate matters already conclusively determined by tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction. To allow them to proceed would amount to an abuse of process and bring the administration of justice into disrepute; therefore, the proceedings must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs against the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed.
  • The plaintiffs shall pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including the costs of the motions.