FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Singh v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2011] FCA 876 Citation: Singh v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2011] FCA 876 Parties: MOHINDER SINGH v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS File number: VID 234 of 2010 Judge: BROMBERG J Date of judgment: 27 July 2011 Legislation: Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth) Federal Court Rules O 21 r 1 Date of hearing: 27 July 2011 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 9 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person assisted by an interpreter Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr J Ciullo of Sparke Helmore IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 234 of 2010 BETWEEN: MOHINDER SINGH Applicant AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS First Respondent SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Second Respondent JUDGE: BROMBERG J DATE OF ORDER: 27 JULY 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's Notice of Motion of 22 July 2011 is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the Notice of Motion. 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 234 of 2010 BETWEEN: MOHINDER SINGH Applicant AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS First Respondent SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS Second Respondent JUDGE: BROMBERG J DATE: 27 JULY 2011 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The Applicant in this matter (Mr Singh), has filed a notice of motion dated 22 July 2011 seeking that delivery of the judgments pending in application VID 265 of 2010 and in this application should be stayed until an application made by Mr Singh in the High Court is determined. 2 By this proceeding (VID 234 of 2010), Mr Singh has applied under the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth) ("the ADJR Act") to set aside a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT"). By the decision under challenge, the AAT refused Mr Singh leave to institute a number of proceedings in the AAT. The vexatious litigant sanction was applied to Mr Singh by the AAT on 3 July 2006 and requires that Mr Singh seek the leave of the AAT to institute a proceeding before the AAT in relation to specified claims. 3 The other matter before me in relation to which Mr Singh's notice of motion seeks that I defer my judgment is matter VID 265 of 2010. That proceeding is an application by the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and also the Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations ("the Secretaries") to have the vexatious litigant sanction applied to Mr Singh pursuant to O 21 r 1 of the Federal Court Rules. 4 The delivery of judgment in both those matters was listed for today and, as I have said, Mr Singh by his notice of motion seeks that judgment not be delivered until the matter filed by him in the High Court is dealt with. 5 In support of his application, Mr Singh has filed an affidavit dated 22 July 2011. In that affidavit, Mr Singh deposes that on 28 February 2008, a sequestration order was made against his estate by a Registrar of the Federal Magistrates Court. It appears that over three years later, on 3 March 2011, Mr Singh made an application for review of the Registrar's order. As the application for review was out of time, Mr Singh sought leave for time to be extended. 6 On 9 May 2011, Mr Singh's application to extend time to review the sequestration order was dismissed by the Federal Magistrate. On 19 May 2011, Mr Singh filed a Notice of Appeal against the orders of the Federal Magistrate. That Notice of Appeal was dismissed by a judge of this Court on 23 May 2011 and Mr Singh subsequently appealed that decision. 7 It appears that on the application of the Secretaries, a judge of this Court determined that Mr Singh's appeal was incompetent and dismissed it. Mr Singh deposes that he has filed a proceeding in the High Court challenging the dismissal of his appeal in this Court. 8 I have taken submissions from Mr Singh this morning. Mr Singh has not satisfied me that there is any basis as to why my judgment in the two matters, that is, VID 234 of 2010 and VID 265 of 2010, should not be delivered today. Mr Singh has not demonstrated how the proceeding that he has brought, in the High Court, has any bearing upon the matters in relation to which I intend to deliver my judgment. 9 I will make orders dismissing the notice of motion and order that Mr Singh pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg. Associate: Dated: 4 August 2011