Singh v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2011] FCA 116 (2 February 2011)

Last Updated: 22 February 2011

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Singh v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2011] FCA 116

Citation:		Singh v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2011] FCA 116
Parties:		MOHINDER SINGH v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
File number:		VID 1106 of 2010
Judge:		BROMBERG J
Date of judgment:		2 February 2011
Catchwords:		PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Stay of proceedings – Stay granted where judgment in another proceeding raising similar issues is reserved
Legislation:		Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 153B
Cases cited:		Sterling Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited v The Boots Company Australia Proprietary Limited [1992] FCA 72; (1992) 34 FCR 287
Date of hearing:	2 February 2011
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	10
Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G Moore
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 1106 of 2010

BETWEEN:	MOHINDER SINGH Applicant
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent

JUDGE:	BROMBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 FEBRUARY 2011
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The hearing of this matter be stayed until a date not before the date on which the judgments of this court are given in matter number VID234 of 2010 and matter number VID265 of 2010.
2. The costs of today be reserved.
   

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 1106 of 2010

BETWEEN:	MOHINDER SINGH Applicant
AND:	SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Respondent

JUDGE:	BROMBERG J
DATE:	2 FEBRUARY 2011
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Mr Singh, filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court (MLG1591 of 2010). By that application Mr Singh sought orders that the sequestration order made against his estate on 28 February 2008 be annulled pursuant to s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Bankruptcy Act”). As I currently understand the basis of his claim, it is that the sequestration order should not have been made because that order was based on costs orders made in proceedings in which the validity of orders made are in question and remain in question in an application which Mr Singh has before this Court (VID 234 of 2010).
2. On 7 December 2010, the application made in the Federal Magistrates Court was transferred to this Court. The matter was listed for a directions hearing today and also for the hearing of the respondent’s notice of motion dated 28 January 2011. By that notice of motion the respondent seeks a stay of this proceeding until a date not before the date on which the judgments of the Court are given in matter numbers VID 234 of 2010 and VID 265 of 2010.
3. The proceeding in VID 234 of 2010 is a proceeding in which, pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), Mr Singh seeks review of certain decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That matter has been heard to finality and my judgment has been reserved. VID265 of 2010 is an application made by the respondent pursuant to Order 21 of the Federal Court Rules for, inter alia, that Mr Singh be declared a vexatious litigant. That matter was also heard to finality before me and the judgment in that matter is reserved.
4. In an affidavit filed in support of the respondent’s notice of motion some background is provided to this application. That background includes the fact that Mr Singh has brought numerous proceedings against the respondent in a number of courts and tribunals. All of those proceedings in one way or another relate to the recovery in 1999 by Centrelink of a sum of $88,000 out of moneys that were due under a County Court judgment to Mr Singh.
5. The respondent says that an annulment application of the same kind now agitated in this proceeding was previously made and rejected to the extent that ultimately special leave was refused by the High Court. The respondent intends, in relation to this proceeding, to assert an anshun estoppel and to mount a res judicata defence.
6. However, for the purposes of its notice of motion the respondent says that this proceeding raises many of the same issues that are to be determined in VID 234 of 2010 and VID 265 of 2010. It is apparent to me from the affidavit which has been filed by Mr Singh in this proceeding of 11 January 2011, together with a further affidavit of 31 January 2011, that the similarity of issues referred to by the respondent is well established.
7. I was referred by the respondent to the decision of Lockhart J in Sterling Pharmaceuticals Proprietary Limited v The Boots Company Australia Proprietary Limited [1992] FCA 72; (1992) 34 FCR 287, and in particular at [290]-[291]. As is apparent from that decision, this Court has a general power to control its own proceedings and that power extends to enable the Court to order a temporary stay of proceedings in various circumstances including a case where proceedings are pending in this court or in another court.
8. Some of the circumstances that may be relevant to the grant of a stay are set out by Lockhart J and those relied upon by the respondent include the following:

(i) That the determination of VID234 of 2010 and VID265 of 2010 are likely to have a material effect on this proceeding;

(ii) That there will be wastage of time and expense in the preparation and hearing of this proceeding given the similarity of issues to be determined; and

(iii) That the law should strive against permitting multiplicity of proceedings in relation to similar issues.

9. Mr Singh has not been able to identify any reasonable basis why it might be appropriate for this proceeding to be heard and determined prior to judgment being delivered in VID 234 of 2010 and VID 265 of 2010.
10. In the circumstances, I propose to make the orders sought in the notice of motion.
    

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg.

Associate:

Dated: 2 February 2011