Singh v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (No 3) [2011] FCA 1042

Singh v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (No 3) [2011] FCA 1042

Because Mr Singh's extant annulment application sought again to relitigate matters already finally determined, and for the same reasons the Court had determined that he should not be permitted to institute new proceedings without leave, he should not be permitted to continue any extant proceeding without leave of the Court. Costs followed the event, with indemnity costs appropriate for VID 234 of 2010 and conditionally for VID 1106 of 2010 if leave was not granted, but not for VID 265 of 2010.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Applications Concerning Vexatious Litigant Sanction, Costs of Dismissed ADJR Proceeding, and Leave to Continue Extant Proceeding / Final Orders on Costs, Application of Former Federal Court Rules, and Whether Extant Proceedings May Continue Without Leave
Outcome
Orders made restricting continuation of proceedings without leave, applying the former Federal Court Rules to VID 265 of 2010, and awarding costs against Mr Singh.
Legal Topics
['vexatious Litigant Sanction' 'extant Proceedings' 'leave of the Court' 'costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'federal Court Rules Transition' 'annulment of Sequestration Order']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'bankruptcy'] ['vexatious Litigant Sanction' 'extant Proceedings' 'leave of the Court' 'costs' 'indemnity Costs' 'federal Court Rules Transition' 'annulment of Sequestration Order']

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

Applications Concerning Vexatious Litigant Sanction, Costs of Dismissed ADJR Proceeding, and Leave to Continue Extant Proceeding / Final Orders on Costs, Application of Former Federal Court Rules, and Whether Extant Proceedings May Continue Without Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether any extant proceeding instituted by Mr Singh should be allowed to continue without leave of the Court.' 'Whether the Federal Court Rules as in force immediately before 1 August 2011 should apply to the hearing and determination of the application in VID 265 of 2010.' 'Whether costs should be awarded to the successful parties and whether indemnity costs should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Singh's extant annulment application sought again to relitigate matters already finally determined, and for the same reasons the Court had determined that he should not be permitted to institute new proceedings without leave, he should not be permitted to continue any extant proceeding without leave of the Court. Costs followed the event, with indemnity costs appropriate for VID 234 of 2010 and conditionally for VID 1106 of 2010 if leave was not granted, but not for VID 265 of 2010.

Court Disposition

Orders made restricting continuation of proceedings without leave, applying the former Federal Court Rules to VID 265 of 2010, and awarding costs against Mr Singh.

Orders

  • ["In VID 234 of 2010, the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis." 'In VID 265 of 2010, the Federal Court Rules, as in force immediately before 1 August 2011, apply without modification to the hearing and determination of this application.' 'In VID 265 of 2010, any proceeding...