Singh v Sharma; Singh v Energy Services Management Pty Ltd t/as Glow Power; Singh v Harrowell; Singh v Cavanagh; Singh v Tidball; Singh v Charles; Singh v Street [2023] NSWSC 551 (18 May 2023)

Last Updated: 25 May 2023

Supreme Court New South Wales

Case Name:	Singh v Sharma; Singh v Energy Services Management Pty Ltd t/as Glow Power; Singh v Harrowell; Singh v Cavanagh; Singh v Tidball; Singh v Charles; Singh v Street
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2023] NSWSC 551
Hearing Date(s):	18 May 2023
Date of Orders:	18 May 2023
Decision Date:	18 May 2023
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Beech-Jones CJ at CL
Decision:	See [23]
Catchwords:	Practice and Procedure – summary dismissal – no question of principle
Legislation Cited:	Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW) Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Singh v Charles [2022] NSWSC 743 Singh v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2022] NSWSC 78 Singh v Singh [2023] NSWSC 280
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Proceedings 2022/196452 Gurjit Singh (First Plaintiff) Kiranjit Kaur (Second Plaintiff) Narinder Sharma (First Defendant) Sarvjot Singh (Second Defendant) RCMO Pty Ltd (Third Defendant) Umesh Sharma (Fourth Defendant) Krishna Sharma (Fifth Defendant) Patrick Gardner (Sixth Defendant) Suzanne Gainsford-Holland (Seventh Defendant) Proceedings 2022/00185767 Gurjit Singh (First Plaintiff) Kiranjit Kaur (Second Plaintiff) Louis Murphy (First Defendant) Joshua Deverell (Second Defendant) Makayla Banks (Third Defendant) Andrew Cooke (Fourth Defendant) Jared Stanbridge (Fifth Defendant) Kelsey Sherman (Sixth Defendant) Karen Webb (Seventh Defendant) Energy Services Management Pty Ltd t/as Glow Power (Eighth Defendant) Vinita Lekhawar (Ninth Defendant) Keshavnanda Lekhawar (Tenth Defendant) Rex Ellison (Eleventh Defendant) Fort Coffey Pty Ltd (Twelfth Defendant) State of NSW (Thirteenth Defendant) Christina Pirina (Fourteenth Defendant) Lucinda Wilson (Fifteenth Defendant) Graham Ellis (Sixteenth Defendant) Cathy Szczygielski (Seventeenth Defendant) Arnold Suthers (Eighteenth Defendant) Philip Durack (Nineteenth Defendant) Mark Harrowell (Twentieth Defendant) Patrick Gardner (Twenty First Defendant) Proceedings 2022/24794 Gurjit Singh (Plaintiff) Mark Harrowell (First Defendant) David Charles (Second Defendant) Theresa Simon (Third Defendant) David Goldstein (Fourth Defendant) Jerry Riznyczok (Fifth Defendant) Rebel Kenna (Sixth Defendant) Karen Jones (Seventh Defendant) Lauren Aquilina (Eighth Defendant) Attorney General of New South Wales (Ninth Defendant) Anzer Khan (Tenth Defendant) Sarah Khan (Eleventh Defendant) Ghulam Akbar Khan (Twelfth Defendant) Samina Khan (Thirteenth Defendant) Fobupu Pty Ltd (Fourteenth Defendant) Anthonyu Dicembre (Fifteenth Defendant) McGrath Dicembre & Co (Sixteenth Defendant) Ryan Brown (Seventeenth Defendant) Proceedings 2023/44063 Gurjit Singh (Plaintiff) Richard Cavanagh (First Defendant) Stephen Rothman (Second Defendant) Andrew Bell (Third Defendant) Dominic Perrottet (Fourth Defendant) Anthony Albanese (Fifth Defendant) Proceedings 2023/69493 Gurjit Singh (First Plaintiff) Kiranjit Kaur (Second Plaintiff) Michael Tidball (First Defendant) Tracy Hall (Second Defendant) Umesh Sharma (Third Defendant) Krishna Sharma (Fourth Defendant) Michelle Brazel (Fifth Defendant) NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Sixth Defendant) Sarvjot Singh (Seventh Defendant) RCMO Pty Ltd (Eighth Defendant) Narinder Sharma (Ninth Defendant) Simon Thode (Tenth Defendant) Patrick Gardner (Eleventh Defendant) Kim Rosser (Twelfth Defendant) Robert Titterton (Thirteenth Defendant) Proceedings 2021/328613 Gurjit Singh (Plaintiff) David Charles (First Defendant) Vinita Kekhawar (Second Defendant) Keshavnand Lekhwar (Third Defendant) Proceedings 2022/247788 Gurjit Singh (Plaintiff) Alexander Whistler Street (First Defendant) Robert James Bromwich (Second Defendant) Brendan Bellach (Third Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Proceedings 2022/196452 Ms C Nguyen (First, Second and Third Defendants) Proceedings 2022/185767 Mr R Lee (State of NSW) Proceedings 2022/24 Mr R Lee (First to Eighth Defendants) Mr H Atkin (Ninth Defendant) Ms E Steer (Seventeenth Defendant, mention for Fifteenth and Sixteenth Defendants) Proceedings 2023/44063 Mr R Lee (First to Fourth Defendants) Ms V Thomas (Commonwealth of Australia) Proceedings 2023/69493 Mr H Atkin (First Defendant) Ms C Nguyen (Seventh to Ninth Defendants) Proceedings 2021/328613 No appearances Proceedings 2022/247788 Ms V Thomas (First and Second Defendants) Mr R Lee (Third Defendant) Solicitors: Proceedings 2022/196452 Self-represented (Plaintiff) Wotton + Kearney (First, Second and Third Defendants) Neil Lawyers (Fourth and Fifth Defendants) Crown Solicitor’s Office (Sixth and Seventh Defendants) Proceedings 2022/185767 Self-represented (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor’s Office (First to Seventh Defendants; Thirteenth to Twenty First Defendants) Submitting Appearance (Eleventh and Twelfth Defendants) Proceedings 2022/24794 Self-represented (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor’s Office (First to Ninth Defendants) McGrath Dicembre & Company (Fifteenth and Sixteenth Defendants) Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers (Seventeenth Defendant) Proceedings 2023/44063 Self-represented (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor’s Office (First to Fourth Defendants) Australian Government Solicitor (Commonwealth of Australia) Proceedings 2023/69493 Self-represented (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor’s Office (First Defendant) Wotton + Kearney (Seventh to Ninth Defendants) Proceedings 2021/328613 Self-represented (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor’s Office (First Defendant) Proceedings 2022/247788 Self-represented (Plaintiff) Australian Government Solicitor (First and Second Defendants) Crown Solicitor’s Office (Third Defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/196452; 2022/185767; 2022/24794; 2023/44063; 2023/69493; 2021/328613; 2022/247788

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. (Revised from transcript)

Re Proceedings 2022/00196452 – Gurjit Singh v Narinder Sharma & Ors

2. On 24 March 2023, I published reasons in Singh v Singh [2023] NSWSC 280 (“Singh v Singh”). That judgment concerned a number of proceedings that had been commenced by Mr Gurjit Singh against various defendants. One set of proceedings, being proceedings 2022/00196452, had an additional plaintiff, being Ms Kiranjit Khaur. I ordered that those proceedings be dismissed against certain defendants, that the balance of the statement of claim be struck out and that Mr Singh's claim be dismissed. This left the possibility that Ms Khaur might be able to formulate a pleading in proper form. To that end, I stood the proceedings over TO today to determine whether the proceedings would be dismissed or whether she might be granted leave to file an amended statement of claim.
3. Since the time of the judgment, no steps have been taken on Ms Kaur’s behalf to formulate a pleading or otherwise pursue the matter. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to order that the proceedings be dismissed.

Proceedings No 2022/00185767 – Gurjit Singh v Energy Services Management Pty Ltd t/as Glow Power

4. On 24 March 2023, I ordered that the proceedings No 2022/00185767 against various defendants be dismissed and that the statement of claim be otherwise struck out. I left open the possibility that Ms Khaur might serve on the State of New South Wales a proposed amended statement of claim. I stood over until today the question as to whether leave might be granted to file that statement of claim or whether the proceedings would be dismissed (Singh v Singh at [77]). No proposed amended statement of claim was filed nor was any other step taken on behalf of Ms Kaur.
5. Accordingly, I order that the proceedings be dismissed.

Proceedings 2023/00044063 – Gurjit Singh v Richard Cavanagh

6. In proceedings number 2023/00044063, the plaintiff, Mr Gurjit Singh, has filed a statement of claim naming five defendants. The first two defendants are Judges of the Common Law Division of this Court. The third defendant is the Chief Justice of New South Wales. The named fourth defendant is the former Premier of New South Wales and the named fifth defendant is the current Prime Minister of Australia.
7. To the extent that the statement of claim is in any way intelligible, it is clear that the proceedings against the first two defendants, that is, the two judges of the Common Law Division, make complaint about decisions they have made in a judicial capacity. The pleading also asserts that the Chief Justice has been “negligent” in the administration of this Court and thus somehow bears responsibility for the decisions of the two Judges complained of. In respect of the former Premier and the Prime Minister, it is simply pleaded that they are the "Executive Head" of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia respectively, whatever that means.
8. The first four defendants filed a notice of motion which, amongst other matters, sought summary dismissal. The Commonwealth of Australia filed a motion seeking leave to be substituted for the fifth defendant and the summary dismissal or strikeout of the proceedings.
9. It is unnecessary to describe all the ways in which the proceedings are misconceived. It is sufficient to note that the first two defendants clearly have judicial immunity in respect of their decisions as judicial officers and that the Chief Justice has a similar or analogous immunity in respect of his Honour’s administration of the Court (see Singh v Charles [2022] NSWSC 743; Judicial Officers Act 1986 (NSW), s 44A).
10. As for the former Premier and current Prime Minister, a simple assertion that they are the "Executive Head" of New South Wales and the Commonwealth, whatever that means, does not amount to a cause of action.
11. Accordingly, it is appropriate to give summary judgment in favour of the first three defendants and to strike out the proceedings in respect of the former Premier and the current Prime Minister. Moreover, given that the pleading is otherwise unintelligible and appears to be vexatious, it is appropriate not to grant leave to re‑plead. Instead, I will dismiss the proceedings.

Proceedings 2021/00328613 – Gurjit Singh v David Charles

12. In proceedings 2021/00328613, the plaintiff Gurjit Singh filed a statement of claim on 18 November 2021 naming three defendants: David Charles, Vinita Lekhawar and Keshavnanda Lekhawar. As best as I can ascertain, the statement of claim made various complaints about a retail tenancy involving the second and third defendants. It also sued the first defendant, who is a member of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
13. On 30 March 2022, Garling J made an order dismissing the proceedings against the first defendant as a consequence of a motion filed on behalf of the first defendant seeking that relief (Singh v Charles [2022] NSWSC 743).
14. Since then, what has been left is the balance of proceedings against the second and third defendants, who have not taken any active part in the proceedings. As best as I can tell, the only substantive step that has been taken is that the plaintiff filed a notice of motion seeking summary judgment.
15. The only course the Court can take in the face of what is inaction, is to list the matter on a date when these matters will be otherwise returning, namely 1 June 2023, for the parties to show cause why the proceedings should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.
16. Accordingly, these proceedings will be listed before me at 9.30 on 1 June 2023 for the parties to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Proceedings 2022/00247788 – Gurjit Singh v Alexander Whistler Street

17. In proceedings number 2022/00247788, the plaintiff, Gurjit Singh, filed a statement of claim naming three defendants. The first defendant is a Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). The second defendant is a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The third defendant is a Manager of Costs Assessment.
18. As best as could be ascertained, the background appears to be that the first defendant made a sequestration order based upon a costs assessment made by the third defendant. There was an appeal of that order to the Federal Court. The second defendant made various orders in the case management of that appeal to which the plaintiff took objection.
19. The statement of claim is discursive and embarrassing in form.
20. The Commonwealth of Australia has applied for summary judgment in respect of the first and second defendants on the basis that they have judicial immunity. Consistent with Singh v SinghI, that contention must be upheld and summary judgment granted.
21. In relation to the Manager of Costs Assessment, there are two matters that appear to make it overwhelmingly likely that the proceedings are also misconceived. The first is that the Manager of Costs Assessment has a statutory protection of liability, which appears to extend to a damages action for any act or omission done or omitted in good faith and in the administration of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) (s 93F). One could speculate that the plaintiff's answer to that is the numerous unparticularised allegations of bad faith throughout the statement of claim, however, that only exemplifies the difficulty with the pleading.
22. The second reason that the proceedings are most likely misconceived is the fact that, as a bankrupt, the action appears to have vested in his trustee who does not show any interest in pursuing it (see Singh v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2022] NSWSC 78 at [22ff]). The only potential residual doubt I have about that contention is that some of the arguably intelligible aspects of the statement of claim make references to emotional distress and mental harm such that there may be a skerrick of an argument that this is a cause of action that did not vest upon his bankruptcy.
23. It is unnecessary to consider this further because, consistent with what I said in Singh v Singh, there is no reason not to hold this plaintiff to the requirement of clearly pleading a cause of action, especially where allegations of bad faith are made. The pleading does not properly articulate any cause of action against anyone, including the third defendant. Given its generally vexatious nature, there is no reason whatsoever to allow liberty to re-plead.
24. Orders
25. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:
26. In Proceedings 2022/00196452 – Gurjit Singh v Narinder Sharma & Ors

(1) The proceedings be dismissed.

In Proceedings No 2022/00185767 – Gurjit Singh v Energy Services Management Pty Ltd t/as Glow Power

(1) The proceedings be dismissed.

In Proceedings 2023/00044063 – Gurjit Singh v Richard Cavanagh

(1) The Fifth Defendant, the Hon Anthony Albanese, be removed from these proceedings pursuant to r 6.29 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

(2) The Commonwealth of Australia be joined to these proceedings as the Fifth Defendant pursuant to rule 6.24 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

(3) The proceedings be dismissed as against the First to Third Defendants.

(4) The balance of the Statement of Claim be struck out.

(5) The balance of the proceedings be dismissed.

(6) The plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings.

(7) The Notice of Motion filed 12 May 2023 be otherwise dismissed.

In Proceedings 2021/00328613 – Gurjit Singh v David Charles

(1) The matter is stood over to 9.30am on 1 June 2023 before Beech-Jones CJ at CL for the parties to show cause as to why the proceedings should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

In Proceedings 2022/00247788 – Gurjit Singh v Alexander Whistler Street

(1) The proceedings against the first and second defendants be dismissed.

(2) The balance of the Statement of Claim be struck out.

(3) The proceedings be dismissed.

(4) The plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs.

(5) The Notices of Motion dated 15 November 2022 be otherwise dismissed.

In Proceedings 2023/0069493 – Gurjit Singh v Michael Tidball

(1) The proceedings be stood over to 9.30am on 1 June 2023 for return of any Notice of Motion that may be filed by any defendant for summary dismissal of the proceedings.

(2) Any such motion, and material in support, be filed by 5.00pm Monday, 22 May 2023.

(3) Any submissions in support of the motion are to be filed and served by 5.00pm 25 May 2023. The submissions are not to exceed five pages.

**********