Islam v Ratul [2023] NSWSC 1625

Islam v Ratul [2023] NSWSC 1625

The proceedings were summarily dismissed because the pleaded duties were owed, if at all, to ARER rather than to the plaintiffs; ARER was in liquidation and the liquidator had not consented to proceedings being brought in its name; a shareholder could not sue to recover the company's losses; the statement of claim was inadequately particularised; and the proceedings were an abuse of process as they repeated substantially the same complaints and relief ventilated in earlier proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings; Defendants' Motion for Summary Dismissal or Strike Out / Judgment on Defendants' Motion Filed 5 May 2023
Outcome
The proceedings were summarily dismissed, with costs payable by the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'company in Liquidation' 'shareholder Claims for Company Losses' 'abuse of Process' 'multiple Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'fiduciary Duties' 'negligence'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'company in Liquidation' 'shareholder Claims for Company Losses' 'abuse of Process' 'multiple Proceedings']

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 Proceedings; Defendants' Motion for Summary Dismissal or Strike Out / Judgment on Defendants' Motion Filed 5 May 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 13.4.' 'Whether the statement of claim should alternatively be struck out under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 14.28.' 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to bring claims based on duties owed to Australian Real Estate Relations Pty Ltd, a company in liquidation.' 'Whether the pleading sufficiently particularised the alleged agreement, duty of care and negligence.' 'Whether the proceedings were an abuse of process because multiple proceedings had been brought to ventilate substantially the same asserted cause of action.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were summarily dismissed because the pleaded duties were owed, if at all, to ARER rather than to the plaintiffs; ARER was in liquidation and the liquidator had not consented to proceedings being brought in its name; a shareholder could not sue to recover the company's losses; the statement of claim was inadequately particularised; and the proceedings were an abuse of process as they repeated substantially the same complaints and relief ventilated in earlier proceedings.

Court Disposition

The proceedings were summarily dismissed, with costs payable by the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Under rule 13.4 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) the proceedings are summarily dismissed;' 'The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants costs of the proceedings;' 'Any application for a special order for costs is to be made within 14 days of the date of judgment by written submission not exceeding 3 pages in...