Qasim v Davidson [2022] NSWSC 883

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Qasim v Davidson [2022] NSWSC 883 Hearing dates: 04 July 2022 Date of orders: 04 July 2022 Decision date: 04 July 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: See [45] Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — summary disposal — dismissal of proceedings — no reasonable cause of action disclosed — frivolous and vexatious proceedings — abuse of process CIVIL PROCEDURE — parties — vexatious litigants — party referred to the Prothonotary to consider whether proceedings should be brought under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 13.4, 14.28 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 Cases Cited: A v The Department of Communities and Justice [2021] NSWSC 937 Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333 Perera v Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Pty Ltd (2017) 94 NSWLR 83; [2017] NSWCA 19 Qasim v Bird [2022] NSWSC 258 Texts Cited: Not applicable Category: Principal judgment Parties: Shaheen Qasim (P) Alan Davidson (D1) Virginia Mace (D2) Representation: Counsel: Self-Represented (P) G Edwards (D1) B Burke (D2)

Solicitors: Priest Legal (D1) Baker Love Lawyers (D2) File Number(s): 2022/13595 Publication restriction: Not applicable

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Summons 1. The plaintiff commenced proceedings in this Court by filing a Summons on 17 January 2022. Given the nature of the claim, so far as can be deciphered, it is unclear why the plaintiff has commenced proceedings by a Summons. Such a form and method of commencing proceedings does not comply with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 ("UCPR"). That non-compliance can be put to one side for the moment. 2. The plaintiff claims against the first defendant, Mr Alan Davidson, the sum of $55,000. She claims against the second defendant, Ms Virginia Mace, the sum of $60,000. 3. As against the first defendant, she pleads the following words: "Alan Davidson caused enormous distress to all my tenants. Resulting in losses caused by the behaviours of defendant. As confirmed below with provable facts against the defendant one." 1. Insofar as the Summons set out a claim against the second defendant it says: "Defendant two, Ms Mace, has engaged in alleged misconduct against the plaintiff and all other owners. It's important she replies to the summons. She should be held accountable." 1. The Summons barely makes sense. In an effort to try and identify the plaintiff's case at its highest, it appears to me that the plaintiff seems to allege the following. First, that the first defendant caused enormous distress to the plaintiff's tenants, resulting in losses to the plaintiff. Secondly, that the first defendant gave a scam reference to a tenant of the plaintiff and lied in his reference to cause distress and loss to the plaintiff. Thirdly, that the first defendant is discourteous, very dishonest and has caused great disharmony. Fourthly, that the second defendant has engaged in alleged misconduct against the plaintiff, this being constituted by the assertion that she lied about the involvement of the Law Society of New South Wales and the appointment of a firm of solicitors and, further, that the second defendant lied about the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("NCAT") making an order approving the appointment of the solicitors to which I have just referred. 2. The plaintiff particularises the distress which I have described above by copying verbatim an email that seems to be sent on 21 October 2021 from a person who may be described as a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Support Coordinator for one of the plaintiff's tenants. The email, which I observe was neither sent by nor to the plaintiff, nor was it sent by or to either of the defendants, seems to complain about issues relating to access to an apartment by a Mr Norman Lilley, who is a tenant at the Meridian Resort. 3. I have referred to the plaintiff's allegation that the first defendant gave a "scam reference". The plaintiff has copied verbatim into her Summons an email that seems to be sent by the first defendant and his wife, in their capacity as building managers of the Meridian Resort Beachside, to a Mr Mitchell Spiteri about the condition of a unit at the Resort. 4. The email asserted that Unit 1 "was not up to our standard", and it would not be placed into the letting pool because of that. Again, the email does not seem to have been sent directly to the plaintiff nor does it involve the second defendant. 5. It seems that the factual basis of the causes of action articulated relate to a group of apartments or townhouses located in Old Bar on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales called the Meridian Resort. As far as I can ascertain the first defendant was one of two Building Managers of that Resort. Secondly, it appears that the second defendant was the Secretary of the Owners Corporation of the Resort. Thirdly, it appears that the plaintiff owns at least one, and perhaps more, apartment or townhouse in the Meridian Resort. The assertions by the plaintiff seem to arise out of matters concerned with the management of that Resort.