Federal Court of Australia Azad v Avant Insurance Limited [2024] FCA 1528 File number: WAD 155 of 2024 Judgment of: COLVIN J Date of judgment: 19 December 2024 Date of publication of reasons: 7 February 2025 Division: General Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Number of paragraphs: 10 Date of hearing: 19 December 2024 Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant did not appear Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Sykes Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers ORDERS WAD 155 of 2024 BETWEEN: DR MOHAMMAD AMIN (DARIUS) SOURAKI AZAD Applicant AND: AVANT INSURANCE LIMITED Respondent order made by: COLVIN J DATE OF ORDER: 19 DECEMBER 2024 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The time for compliance with order 2 of the orders dated 24 October 2024, requiring the applicant to file and serve a proposed statement of claim on or before 6 December 2024, be extended to 4.00 pm AWST on Monday, 10 February 2025. 2. The proposed statement of claim shall: (a) state the key factual matters and events relied upon to support the claim in chronological order and then specify each legal claim raised; (b) not include legal argument or reference to legal authorities; (c) not include footnotes; and (d) be no more than 40 pages and be in 12-point font with 1.5 line spacing. 3. The case management hearing be adjourned until 17 February 2025 at 9.15 am AWST at which time the respondent may move for orders that the proceeding be dismissed if there has been failure to file and serve a proposed statement of claim as required by order 1 of these orders. 4. A copy of the transcript of today's hearing be provided to the parties. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Revised from the transcript) COLVIN J: 1 Dr Darius Azad has brought proceedings against Avant Insurance Limited, his professional indemnity insurer. The proceedings have been on foot since June 2024. On 24 October 2024, Dr Azad was ordered to file and serve a minute of proposed statement of claim and to do so on or before 6 December 2024. There was a failure to comply with that order. Dr Azad sought more time to comply. He also proposed orders as to other matters and sought to rely upon written submissions as to those matters. A case management hearing was held on 19 December 2024. Shortly prior to the case management hearing, Dr Azad informed the Court that he was unable to join the hearing remotely as he had planned, but that he would abide by orders made as to the time for providing a minute of proposed statement of claim. Avant did not oppose an extension until 10 February 2025 of the time for filing the proposed statement of claim but sought a self-executing order to the effect that the proceedings be dismissed if the minute was not filed by that date. 2 In those circumstances, the case management hearing proceeded, despite the absence of Dr Azad, on the basis that he sought to raise the matters in his written submissions and would abide by an order extending the time for providing a minute of proposed statement of claim. Case management orders were made. These were the reasons given for those orders. 3 Having considered the submission advanced by Avant, I am not persuaded that there should be self-executing orders. The position in relation to the orders that were made on the last occasion is that the proposed statement of claim must be filed. And it remains the position that once that is filed, consideration will be given to whether it is an appropriate document, upon which this case can proceed, and if it is not an appropriate document, or no document is filed, then there would be an opportunity for the respondent to move for orders that are considered as appropriate, including orders in relation to dismissal. 4 In the absence of Dr Azad, I indicate that I have had an opportunity to consider the written submissions that he has provided in support of the position that he adopts for this case management hearing. In short, those submissions raise a number of issues about how this matter might progress. I am not persuaded that there should be any steps taken in these proceedings, unless and until there has been a proposed statement of claim filed which can then be considered and a view formed as to whether it is a document which enables the fair progress of these proceedings, having regard to the interests of all parties. Once that document is available, the Court can consider the other steps that should be taken. In short, the first thing that needs to happen in these proceedings is that there needs to be a pleading document that clearly and concisely states the case to be advanced and the issues that are to be raised by Dr Azad in these proceedings, together with the factual matters that are to be relied upon to support the legal claims that are advanced as the basis for the relief that is sought. 5 I propose in a moment to make some orders to be more specific about what is required in the proposed statement of claim. Having regard to the fact that the submissions by Dr Azad invite the Court to consider a number of matters which seem to be premature, it is important that any proposed statement of claim focus upon the nature of the claims that are sought to be advanced. 6 However, before making those orders, I will say something briefly about some of the matters that have been raised by Dr Azad. Firstly, there will be no judicial arbitration in these proceedings, because that is a mechanism that can only proceed with the consent of parties. Further, I observe that if it were to proceed, it would not establish a legal precedent, which seems to be the basis upon which Dr Azad presses for it. It would not do so because any arbitration would take place confidentially and would not result in a judgment of the Court, even if it were to be conducted by a judge of this Court a possibility contemplated by the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). 7 Secondly, there is reference in the submissions to invoices needing to be delivered by Dr Azad. That is a matter that is entirely in the hands of Dr Azad. If he considers that it is appropriate for those documents to be delivered, then steps should be taken for that to happen. 8 Thirdly, there are, in the submissions, other issues that Dr Azad has pointed to without detail. As I have said, unless and until there is an appropriate statement of claim, then there is no real context in which to consider whether there has been any conduct which might be affecting the ongoing conduct of these proceedings. 9 Fourthly, leave is sought to be able to file further documents, particularly affidavits. Matters of evidence will be considered if and when there is an appropriate statement of claim that has been accepted for filing. And for that reason, in these proceedings, I have made an order which will continue to apply, which means that no party is able to file any documents without leave of the Court, and I consider that that should remain the case. 10 I will, in a moment, make an order that this transcript be provided to Dr Azad, as he has not been able to attend today, so that he can see that those matters have been considered. And, as I am sure he understands, because it is apparent from his written documents that he is an articulate and considered person who seeks to conduct these proceedings on his own behalf, that the important matter to focus upon is the proposed statement of claim. I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Colvin. Associate: Dated: 7 February 2025