Huang v Drumm [2018] NSWSC 1556

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Huang v Drumm [2018] NSWSC 1556 Hearing dates: 11 and 12 October 2018 Date of orders: 12 October 2018 Decision date: 12 October 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Pembroke J Decision: Proceeding stayed Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay – application of Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) – multiplicity of proceedings – numerous failed interlocutory appeals – oppression – vexation – absence of proportionality – many unpaid costs orders Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Insolvency Act 2006 (New Zealand) Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) Cases Cited: Gibson v McIntosh (unreported) 8 January 2015 Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2017] NSWSC 582 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Biru Huang – plaintiff Bernard Joseph Drumm – defendant Representation: Solicitors: Plaintiff in person with Mr J Gibson Lander & Rogers – for the defendant

Counsel: Mr D F Elliott – for the defendant File Number(s): 2016/096823

Judgment

Introduction 1. This is an application by the defendant in proceedings that were commenced in 2016. The defendant's notice of motion was filed on 18 August 2017, more than a year ago, and seeks orders staying the proceedings either pursuant to s 17 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) or by some other means. In the alternative, it seeks an order that the plaintiff provide security for the defendant's costs. 2. The plaintiff did not turn up on the first day of hearing of the defendant's application. On the second day, I listened patiently to submissions made on her behalf by a Mr Gibson. At the conclusion of submissions, I gave reasons and stated that I proposed to make orders staying this proceeding. These are those reasons. 3. The procedural history of this litigation, including related proceedings that have preceded it, reveal such a troubling state of affairs that I have concluded that this proceeding should not be allowed to continue. The behaviour by or on behalf of the plaintiff reflects those characteristics that I described in Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2017] NSWSC 582 at [46]. I said then: In this case, and in many similar such cases, the litigant's enthusiasm and passionate engagement in his quest for supposed justice, obscures the essential unreality of his expectations; blinds him to the chaos that his pursuit has created; and renders him oblivious to the waste and expense that he has generated or the disproportionate court time that he has consumed. Such a litigant's level of pre-occupation, ruminative thinking, pedantic attention to the minutiae of his case and dogged persistence, serve only to hinder the efficient administration of justice. It is usually made worse by extravagant language, repeated assertions of fraud and the constant denunciation of the tactics or behaviour of the opposing party. 1. In addition to the matters to which I referred in Zepinic, the submissions by Mr Gibson on behalf of the plaintiff suffered from repetition and loss of perspective. They were frequently rambling, mostly unhelpful and often inaccurate. 2. Litigation conducted in this way demonstrates a persistence that is totally disproportionate to the investment of time and resources that are justified. Grievances grow steadily from the mundane to the grandiose, and the time of this Court and the convenience of other litigants are disrupted and wasted. For those reasons, and for the other reasons that I have explained in the following paragraphs, the plaintiff should no longer be permitted to engage the time of this Court in pursuit of her claim. If she insists on pursuing her claim, then New Zealand is a more appropriate forum in which to do so.