Rajoori, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file [2017] HCATrans 81 (7 April 2017)

Last Updated: 11 April 2017

[2017] HCATrans 081

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M40 of 2017

In the matter of -

an application by PRAVEEN KUMAR RAJOORI for leave to issue or file

NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM MELBOURNE BY VIDEO LINK TO SYDNEY

ON FRIDAY, 7 APRIL 2017, AT 2.33 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR: On 23 March 2017, her Honour Justice Gordon directed the Registrar, pursuant to r 6.07 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) to refuse to issue or file a writ of summons entitled “Between Praveen Kumar Rajoori, Plaintiff, and Gain Capital Australia Pty Ltd, Defendant”.

The applicant now seeks leave pursuant to r 6.07.3 for the Registrar to issue or file the document. Insofar as the Statement of Claim indorsed on the document is capable of comprehension, it alleges that the applicant is seeking “in excess of AUD$1,000,000 as damages for the losses suffered, which left me in financial hardship and my debts are in financial defaults”. The claim is said to be brought in the original jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to s 75(iv) of the Constitution on the basis that the applicant is a resident of the State of Victoria and the proposed defendant, Gain Capital Australia Pty Ltd, is resident in the State of New South Wales.

It is not apparent from the Statement of Claim what, if any, cause of action is alleged. All that appears is that the applicant contends that Gain Capital Australia Pty Ltd acted towards him fraudulently in some unspecified and indecipherable manner. But it is apparent from the Statement of Claim and the applicant’s affidavit filed in support of the application that the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the County Court of Victoria have all already rejected the claim.

The Statement of Claim is incompetent and embarrassing and, inasmuch as it appears on the face of the document that the claim has already been heard and determined by a court and Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, the proceeding which is now sought to be instituted in this Court is an abuse of process, frivolous and vexatious. For these reasons, the application for leave is refused.

AT 2.35 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED