Singh v Lekhwar [2022] NSWCATCD 51

Singh v Lekhwar [2022] NSWCATCD 51

Because the applicant's application was commenced after the making of a sequestration order and his subsequent bankruptcy, his right to bring or continue the action vested in the trustee in bankruptcy and not in the applicant. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an application brought by a bankrupt in these circumstances. Therefore, the application is dismissed for lack of standing.

Parties
Applicant: Gurjit Singh; First Respondent: Keshvanand Lekhwar; Second Respondent: Vinita Lekhwar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under Residential Tenancies Act / Final Decision in Consumer and Commercial Division of NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of standing. Leave granted for legal representation. Disqualification application refused. Name of second respondent amended.
Legal Topics
Bias and Disqualification of Tribunal Member, Legal Representation in Tribunal, Jurisdiction and Standing Under Bankruptcy, Estoppel and Res Judicata
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Law Tenancy Law Bias and Disqualification of Tribunal Member Legal Representation in Tribunal Jurisdiction and Standing Under Bankruptcy Estoppel and Res Judicata

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurjit Singh

Applicant

Keshvanand Lekhwar

First Respondent

Vinita Lekhwar

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Residential Tenancies Act / Final Decision in Consumer and Commercial Division of NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be granted leave to be legally represented
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal member should disqualify himself for actual or apprehended bias
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's status as an undischarged bankrupt affects his standing to bring or continue the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant's application was commenced after the making of a sequestration order and his subsequent bankruptcy, his right to bring or continue the action vested in the trustee in bankruptcy and not in the applicant. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an application brought by a bankrupt in these circumstances. Therefore, the application is dismissed for lack of standing.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of standing. Leave granted for legal representation. Disqualification application refused. Name of second respondent amended.

Orders

  • The name of the second respondent is amended to Vinita Lekhwar.
  • The respondents are granted leave to be legally represented.