Lee v Commissioner for Fair Trading

Medium Neutral Citation: Lee v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2025] NSWSC 799

Hearing dates: 26 June 2025

Date of orders: 26 June 2025

Decision date: 26 June 2025

Jurisdiction: Common Law

Before: Cavanagh J

Decision: See paragraph [23]

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary disposal — dismissal of proceedings — frivolous or vexatious proceedings —where plaintiff’s notice of motion seeks various orders — where plaintiff now only seeks two orders with respect to unfreezing company bank accounts and discharging a statutory manager — case management

Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 13.4(1)

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: Michael Lee (Plaintiff)
Commissioner for Fair Trading (Defendant)

Representation: Counsel:
M Carpenter (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (self-represented)
Department of Customer Service, Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/00133719

Publication restriction: Nil

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. This matter comes before me today pursuant to a motion filed by the plaintiff seeking various orders on an interlocutory basis, including the setting aside of what is described as “invalid freezing orders”, the discharge of statutory management, the discharge of a freezing order, an injunction against Grant Thornton, and an injunction against NSW Fair Trading.

2. The plaintiff appears unrepresented. Ms Carpenter appears on behalf of the defendant.

3. The matter has previously been before me on 15 April 2025 at which time I made certain orders dealing with the issues raised by the parties and allowing the matter to proceed further. The matter came on before Davies J on 4 June 2025.

4. At that time his Honour dismissed the plaintiff's application for the reasons set out in the application, including that at that time, Mr Lee was still represented by a solicitor, and he was still pursuing proceedings in NCAT arising out of the orders made to suspend his strata management licence and freeze, essentially, the operation of his business.

5. On 25 June 2025 I received a motion filed by the defendant, seeking that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to r 13.4(1)(b) and/or (c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), or in the alternative that the proceedings be stayed until final determination of the plaintiff's NCAT proceedings.

6. I also received notice from the plaintiff that he would be withdrawing his application in NCAT. I apprehend that the reason he decided to withdraw that application was because of the decision of Davies J to dismiss his earlier application in this Court because of the existence of those NCAT proceedings.

7. Having received the defendant's motion and being aware that the plaintiff had not been given sufficient notice to deal with the motion today, my chambers indicated to the parties that the defendant’s motion could not proceed today because the plaintiff had not been given a fair opportunity to prepare for the application against him.

8. As such, when the matter came on for hearing today, Ms Carpenter indicated that, she was not intending to proceed with the defendant's motion today and that she had now not come prepared to deal with the plaintiff's motion.

9. Plainly, the email from my chambers led to some confusion. Having said that, it does seem to me that both motions should be heard at the same time. As such, the plaintiff's motion which was listed for today cannot now be determined.

10. When I asked the plaintiff what orders he was seeking, he said that he was only seeking two orders being: (1) an order unfreezing all the company bank accounts, and (2) the discharge of the statutory manager.

11. The basis on which he is seeking a discharge of the statutory manager is unclear but will no doubt be the subject of evidence and submissions in due course if necessary.

12. The basis on which he is seeking an order discharging the freezing order in respect of the company bank accounts is that he says that his company operated three bank accounts, being a Macquarie Bank account, an ANZ Bank account and a NAB bank account.

13. He says that the statutory notice under s 118 of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 (NSW) was only provided in respect of the Macquarie Bank account, which is the trust account operated by his business. It was not provided in respect of the NAB and ANZ bank accounts. He says despite that, there is a freezing order on the NAB and ANZ bank accounts.

14. In these circumstances, he says he is entitled to the discharge of the orders in respect of those accounts.

15. Importantly, the reason he seeks access to those accounts is because he wishes to pay debts owing by the company arising out of the strata management business. He says that the company owes rent and wages to various persons. He says he has provided information to the defendant about that. The defendant disputes that. Clearly there is some misunderstanding or lack of clarity in the exchange of correspondence between the parties on this issue.

16. The plaintiff also informed me that he is no longer pursuing the NCAT proceedings because he does not want to be a strata manager and he is going to move into some other business which has nothing to do with strata management.

17. He says that he cannot do that until he has ensured that all the debts owing by the company are paid because it would affect his financial status if the company which he used to operate is placed into liquidation. At least, at first consideration, that seems like a sensible course for him to adopt if he wishes to move into a new business. He wishes to ensure that his old business is properly shut down and all the debts are paid. No one could be critical of the plaintiff for that intention.

18. Unfortunately, all this is new to the defendant, and specifically, to Ms Carpenter. I understand that she is not in a position to deal with some of the matters raised by the plaintiff today. They rather put a different gloss on what this case is really about.

19. I raised with the parties whether the appropriate course would be to list the whole matter for hearing on an urgent basis. Both parties opposed that course. In particular, the plaintiff candidly stated that, if it is necessary for him to prove all the matters to which he refers in his amended summons, the volume of evidence would be substantial and it would take him some months to organise for such a hearing. I accept that.

20. Both parties wanted the motions dealt with as soon as possible. That is an appropriate course. I propose to set the motions down for hearing for one day on 30 July 2025, being the first available date for a one-day hearing.

21. The bigger question is what these proceedings are now about, bearing in mind that the plaintiff is withdrawing from his NCAT proceedings and is really only seeking orders to allow him to move on with the new business.

22. In my view, the appropriate course is to make orders which encompass what the plaintiff really wants to achieve out of these proceedings, and also allows the motions to be heard, should that not be achieved.

23. In the circumstances, I make the following orders:

24. The plaintiff is to write to the defendant by 5pm on 4 July 2025:

(a) informing the defendant why the plaintiff seeks to have the bank accounts unfrozen, and which bank accounts he seeks to have unfrozen; (b) providing the defendant with an itemised list of accounts which he says the second plaintiff is liable to pay and wishes to have paid, including any invoices or other accounts supporting those claims; (c) if this is still his position, informing the defendant that he will not be seeking to re-enter the strata management field for whatever period he agrees to (so that the defendant can take whatever course it wants in respect of that suggestion); (d) informing the defendant that he wishes to have some report or documentation as to what has happened with the management of the business after the manager was taken over (that is, some reporting as to where all the money has gone).

2. The defendant is to respond to the plaintiff's letter by 10 July 2025, informing the plaintiff of whether it can and will provide the information he seeks, whether it will agree to that which he wants, which is the unfreezing of the NAB and ANZ bank accounts, and if it will not agree to what Mr Lee proposes, then why not.
3. The defendant serve any evidence on which it relies in support of its strike out motion on the plaintiff by 5pm on 10 July 2025.
4. The plaintiff serve any evidence on which he relies on that motion by 5pm on 17 July 2025.
5. Both parties serve any submissions in support of their respective motions by 5pm on 24 July 2025.
6. Both parties respond to each other's submissions by 5pm on 28 July 2025.
7. The defendant prepare a joint court book and provide it to the Court by 1pm on 29 July 2025.
8. Reserve the question of the costs of today.

**********