Khanna v Bond Realty Pty Ltd

Applicable principles

1. In PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2019] NSWCA 48, this Court made reference to the proper approach of an intermediate appellate court to applications for leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions involving the exercise of discretion on questions of practice and procedure. The Court observed (at [5]) that discretionary decisions "engage the strictures against over-ready appellate interference and the correlative need for 'added restraint' associated with House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 with the consequence that a 'heavy burden' lies on an applicant seeking leave to appeal from a discretionary judgment on a question of practice or procedure" (citations omitted).
2. The Court in that case also noted (at [6]) the well-established grounds which generally must be satisfied before leave to appeal to this Court is granted, namely that: "Leave applications in this Court attract a general obligation on the applicant for leave to establish that there is an issue of principle, a question of public importance or a reasonably clear injustice going beyond something that is merely arguable: Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284 at [46]; BE Financial Pty Ltd v Das [2012] NSWCA 164 at [32]-[38]; Age Co Ltd v Liu (2013) 82 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCA 26 at [13]; Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206 at [28]."
3. In our opinion, for the reasons that follow, none of these criteria is made out and leave to appeal should be refused with costs.

Consideration

1. The 26 October notice of motion which was dismissed was a notice of motion which Mr Khanna sought to withdraw in the course of the hearing and it was reasonable that the First Respondent be awarded its costs in relation to that notice of motion. There was and is no good reason why a party that has prepared to meet a notice of motion should be deprived of its costs if a party that has filed it withdraws it in the course of argument. Whilst costs will not always be ordered in such circumstances (see Re Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs; ex parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6; (1997) 186 CLR 622 at 624-625; see also Nichols v NFS Agribusiness Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 84), that is not an invariable rule and there was no error of principle in the primary judge's decision to award costs in relation to the 26 October 2018 notice of motion.
2. There is absolutely no reason to grant leave to appeal from a decision to dismiss a notice of motion in circumstances where the applicant on the motion has put the other side to costs in preparing to meet it but has then sought to withdraw it.
3. In relation to the orders made by Curtis ADCJ to dismiss the 16 November 2018 notice of motion and the proceedings more generally, these orders relate to and arise out of the Applicants' continuing inability to formulate their claims for substantive relief in a sufficiently coherent way. That inability was candidly acknowledged by Mr Khanna in the hearing in the following passage of the transcript which was before the Court on the leave application: "I am not well, number 1. Number 2, I don't have a proper things [sic] that who is the - whether Bond Realty or Rosa Oslem or Jaskeerat Singh Baweja when they are not providing the proper documents. I cannot make my proceedings correctly, and then again it will be dismissed and it will be unduly costed to me again, and this was the main reason that I, I did according to the orders what they made and I expect that the - that, that what I have done should be, should be treated as correctly."
4. After this submission, the primary judge sought clarification in the following exchange: "His Honour: So you didn't file the amended statement of claim because you are ignorant of the facts? First Plaintiff: No, I was ignorant of the facts, number 1, and number 2, the liberty was given to me that onto this motion, so I did not do anything wrong in that one."
5. In his brief reasons, Curtis ADCJ made reference to Mr Khanna's acknowledgement of his inability to formulate the claim as a reason for refusing an application for an extension of time in which to file a further amended statement of claim, this being one of the prayers for relief sought in the notice of motion of 16 November 2018. His Honour said: "The reason offered by the plaintiff as to why the order of Judge Dicker that the amended statement of claim be filed on 2 November [has not been complied with] is that Mr Khanna remains, he says, ignorant of facts which would permit him to plead a cause of action. I do not regard that as a satisfactory explanation."
6. His Honour was also referred to two medical reports, one being a report of Dr Anna Bartolomeo which his Honour mistakenly referred to as having been generated on 8 August 2012. This mistake was an obvious but immaterial error. The second was a medical report of a Dr Rahmanamlashi of 19 October 2018. The primary judge held that he was not satisfied on that material that Mr Khanna was medically disabled in a way that explained his failure to file an amended statement of claim by 2 November 2018. No detailed submission was made as to why his Honour was wrong to reach that conclusion or as to why it was not open to him.
7. The decision to refuse a further extension of time was a discretionary one which was exercised against the background of the full history of the proceedings including the number of opportunities that had been afforded to Mr Khanna to formulate or reformulate his claims in a coherent and satisfactory manner.
8. The dismissal of the proceedings was appropriate given the Applicants' failure and acknowledged inability to take up the leave which had been extended to them by Dicker DCJ (and Levy DCJ before him) to amend the pleaded case in a manner that was coherent and acceptable. The legal system cannot function without claims being coherently formulated. This is a requirement of the rules of court both for reasons of fairness to a party or parties who are sued and also because it is more generally in the public interest that claims be properly formulated as vague and incoherent claims inevitably absorb far greater judicial time and resources than they would had they been formulated with the requisite precision.
9. Having reviewed the transcripts of hearing before each of Levy DCJ, Strathdee DCJ and Judge Curtis ADCJ, the need for a clear formulation or articulation of the case the Applicants wished to propound had been made abundantly clear to them and, in particular, to Mr Khanna. The Applicants were well and truly on notice that this was their obligation and Curtis ADCJ, faced with Mr Khanna's acknowledgment that he was not in a position coherently to formulate the claim he wished to bring, was not obliged to extend further time to allow this to occur. His Honour's order refusing an extension of time was entirely open to him and appropriate in the circumstances. His costs orders necessarily followed the event.
10. Although his Honour's reasons for dismissing the motions of 26 October 2018 and 16 November 2018 were brief, they need to be read in the context of the transcript as a whole. On the very simple facts of the case, namely that the Applicants had not exercised the liberty they had been afforded to file a further amended statement of claim by 2 November and the circumstances where it was said that they were currently unable to formulate their claim, the reasons of the judge really needed to do no more than recite those facts which fell to be considered in the context of the entire history of the litigation, of which all parties were aware and of which Curtis ADCJ was entirely cognisant. His Honour had been fairly and responsibly taken through the history of proceedings by Ms Thew on behalf of the First Respondent.
11. The same vice of incoherence which had attended earlier attempts to formulate a claim regrettably also infected the application for leave to appeal and the summary of argument proffered in support of that application.
12. In its written submissions, the First Respondent endeavoured, as best it was able, to summarise what it gleaned to be the proposed grounds of appeal or bases identified for seeking to attack the orders of Curtis ADCJ. As summarised in the First Respondent's submissions, these grounds of attack were that the primary judge: "(a) was prejudiced and/or biased. (b) failed to give reasons for his orders. (c) made orders in the absence of the Second Appellant, Ms Khanna. (d) dismissed the 30 October 2018 Motion without reasons. (e) dismissed the 26 October 2018 Motion with costs rather than granting leave to the Khannas to withdraw the 26 October 2018 Motion without paying costs. (f) dismissed the whole of the District Court Proceedings without reasons. (g) Erred in referring to the date of the medical certificate included in the bundle of documents annexed to the Khannas' affidavit filed on 16 November 2018, included with the Further Amended 16 November 2018 Motion, as being 8 August 2012 instead of 8 August 2018."
13. In our opinion, these several attacks on the reasons and orders of Curtis ADCJ are either without foundation or are not such as to satisfy the criteria for a grant of leave to appeal. A number have already been dealt with.
14. Insofar as the Applicants' case suggests some bias on the part of Curtis ADCJ, we see no basis whatsoever for this contention, such as it was. Certainly no comprehensible basis for this contention was advanced by the Applicants in their summary of argument. Mr Khanna was afforded ample opportunity to present argument both on his own behalf and on behalf of Mrs Khanna, and in chief and in reply.
15. In relation to the complaint about the dismissal of the 30 October 2018 notice of motion, as already stated, the further amended notice of motion of 16 November 2018 superseded the 30 October 2018 motion (and, for that matter, the 31 October 2018 motion). In those circumstances the primary judge was quite right not to address those motions. The criticism of his Honour's dismissing the 30 October 2018 motion without reasons is wholly unsound.
16. Insofar as complaint is sought to be made that Curtis ADCJ made orders in the absence of Mrs Khanna, whilst Mrs Khanna was not personally present at the 30 November 2018 hearing, at the commencement of that hearing, Mr Khanna explained that Mrs Khanna was overseas and tendered to the Court an "authority letter for [Mrs Khanna]". The Applicants, having arranged for Mr Khanna to appear on behalf of Mrs Khanna, cannot now complain of orders having been made in her absence. No suggestion was made that Mrs Khanna had not authorised her husband to appear on her behalf on 30 November 2018.
17. Finally, in relation to the decision to set aside service of the subpoenas, two points should be made. First, the Applicants did not in their original written submissions advance any argument to impugn this decision. Secondly, in oral submissions and written submissions in reply to the Second Respondent's submissions, the Applicants submitted that they had not been served with the notice of motion filed on 12 November 2018 seeking to set the subpoenas aside. A review of the transcript of the hearing before Curtis ADCJ certainly suggested that Mr Khanna was aware of this notice of motion and Ms Berberian on behalf of the Second Respondent was given leave to forward to the Court a copy of the email serving the notice of motion on Mr Khanna. We are satisfied that Mr Khanna had knowledge of it and that it was listed for hearing on 30 November 2018. The setting aside of the subpoenas was inevitable once the primary judge reached the conclusion that the proceedings should be dismissed.
18. For the above reasons, we would dismiss the application for leave to appeal with costs.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 31 May 2019