//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2011] FCA 1219
Federal Court of Australia
2011-10-28
Bromberg J
Original judgment source is linked above.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Mr Singh has applied for leave to continue this proceeding. The reason he requires the leave of the Court to continue this proceeding is because Mr Singh is the subject of orders that restrain him from instituting or continuing any proceeding in this Court without the leave of the Court. For the following reasons, I have declined to grant Mr Singh leave to continue this proceeding and have dismissed his application.
BACKGROUND 2 This proceeding was instituted by an application filed by Mr Singh on 17 November 2011. The application seeks the annulment of a sequestration order made against Mr Singh's estate by the Federal Magistrates Court on 28 February 2008 ("the 2008 sequestration order"). 3 On 2 February 2011 I made orders staying this proceeding pending the determination of two related proceedings, VID 234 of 2010 and VID 265 of 2010 ("the related proceedings"). I did so including because: (i) I found that this proceeding raises many of the same issues that were to be determined in the related proceedings; and, (ii) VID 265 of 2010 was an application made under O 21 of the former Rules of the Federal Court (repealed on 1 August 2011) for an order that Mr Singh be restrained from instituting further proceedings or continuing extant proceedings without the leave of the Court. 4 On 27 July 2011 I delivered reasons for judgment in the related proceedings which were published as Singh v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] FCA 833 ("earlier reasons for judgment"). In those reasons, I found that VID 234 of 2010 was a vexatious proceeding instituted by Mr Singh (at [103]) and that numerous vexatious proceedings had been instituted by Mr Singh in this Court and other courts: see [26]-[82]. Consequently, I made orders including an order dismissing VID 234 of 2010 and an order that Mr Singh not institute any proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia without leave of the Court. I also made an order giving the parties time to file further submissions on the question of costs and as to whether an order should be made that any extant proceeding instituted by Mr Singh not continue without the leave of the Court. 5 On 31 August 2011 the parties made further oral submissions. I delivered a short ex tempore judgment (published as Singh v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (No 3) [2011] FCA 1042) and made further orders, including that any extant proceeding instituted in this Court by Mr Singh not be continued without the leave of the Court. As the application in this proceeding was filed before my earlier reasons for judgment were delivered, it constitutes a proceeding that had already been instituted and thus required leave for it to continue. In order to give Mr Singh an opportunity to seek leave to continue this proceeding, I did not dismiss this proceeding on 31 August 2011, but made an order that, if leave to continue this proceeding was not granted to Mr Singh on or before 31 October 2011, then the proceeding be dismissed and Mr Singh pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis.
SHOULD LEAVE TO CONTINUE THE PROCEEDING BE GRANTED? 6 At [59]-[68] of my earlier reasons for judgment, I outlined the circumstances in which Mr Singh had repeatedly agitated for an annulment of the 2008 sequestration order and had exhausted all avenues of appeal all the way to the High Court where special leave was refused. 7 Having considered Mr Singh's application and the supporting affidavit made by him on 17 November 2010 (which included Mr Singh's submission as to why leave should be granted), I am satisfied that what Mr Singh seeks to do in this proceeding is re-agitate issues that have already been determined to finality and that he is estopped from so doing on the basis of the principles set out at [22]-[25] of my earlier reasons for judgment. Whether Mr Singh's application for leave is considered by reference to O 21 r 5 of the former Rules of the Court or r 6.03 of the current Rules, the result is the same. I am not satisfied that this proceeding is not an abuse of process and nor am I satisfied that Mr Singh has a reasonable cause of action.
DISPENSATION 8 For those reasons, I will dismiss Mr Singh's application for leave to continue this proceeding. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg.
Singh
Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations