Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QDC
  3. 2021
  4. Maverick HR Pty Ltd v Ansar Ahmad Abdul Bari - [2021] QDC 268

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Maverick HR Pty Ltd v Ansar Ahmad Abdul Bari[2021] QDC 268

Maverick HR Pty Ltd v Ansar Ahmad Abdul Bari[2021] QDC 268

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Maverick HR Pty Ltd v Ansar Ahmad Abdul Bari & Anor [2021] QDC 268

PARTIES:

MAVERICK HR PTY LTD
(Plaintiff/Applicant)

v

ANSAR AHMAD ABDUL BARI – ANS EXPORTS & IMPORTS

(First Defendant/Respondent)

AND

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(Second Defendant/Respondent)

FILE NO:

1363/17

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

29 October 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 October 2021 (on the papers)

JUDGE:

Porter QC DCJ

ORDERS:

  1. Leave sought by email dated 25 October 2021 by Uttara Chavan to file an application in the proceeding is refused;
  2. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the orders made 5 August 2021 are set aside; and
  3. Ms Uttara Chavan is permanently restrained from:
  1. a.
    Taking any step in this proceeding, including issuing any notice of non-party disclosure, any subpoena or any application; and
  1. b.
    Seeking leave from the Court to take any such step in this proceeding.

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r. 925

CASES:

Brookfield v RealEstate Now Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 226

Summary

  1. [1]
    Ms Uttara Chavan is the sole director of the plaintiff (the company).  On 5 August 2021, I ordered that no application be filed in this proceeding without leave.  By email to my associate, dated 25 October 2021, Ms Chavan provided an application and affidavit and sought a date and time for hearing of the application.  I have treated this email as an application for leave pursuant to my order of 5 August 2021.  Leave is refused.  I give my reasons.

The proceedings

  1. [2]
    These proceedings were commenced in April 2017.  By its claim and statement of claim, the company alleged in broad terms that the first defendant, Mr Bari, had taken advantage of his position as director to undermine the business of the company and engage in various other breaches of his duties as director such that the business of the plaintiff had been destroyed.
  2. [3]
    The pleading was signed by Ms Chavan.  It was inadequate in form and content, despite Ms Chavan’s obviously genuine efforts properly to articulate the company’s claim.  Mr Bari prepared his own defence.  It largely denies the allegations made in the statement of claim.
  3. [4]
    On 7 June 2017, Ms Chavan caused the company to file an application for summary judgment. That application was dismissed with costs by Judge Andrews on 21 June 2017.  I could locate no report of his Honour’s reasons, but reference to the extensive affidavit material filed by both parties would suggest that, at the least, there were hotly contested issues of fact in dispute (quite apart from whether the statement of claim properly articulated any cause of action against Mr Bari).  Ms Chavan was permitted to appear for the company by his Honour. 
  4. [5]
    On 13 July 2017, Ms Chavan caused the company to file an application for Mr Bari to be punished for contempt under Rule 925 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).  So far as I can discern from the outline filed by Ms Chavan, the complaint related to the way Mr Bari’s counsel on the summary judgment application articulated his claim for fees for the application. Ms Chavan appears to have contended that it was not consistent with the form of the costs order made by Judge Andrews.  Again, Ms Chavan appeared on the application for the company and again this was permitted.  The application was dismissed by Judge Andrews on 9 August 2017 with costs.
  5. [6]
    On 12 September 2017, Ms Chavan caused the company to file a second summary judgment application.  Mr Bari cross-applied for various relief, including dismissal for want of prosecution, (in effect) security for costs and judgment for a sum on Judge Andrews’s costs order on the first summary judgment application.
  6. [7]
    On 4 October 2017, Judge Ryrie dismissed the summary judgment application and adourned Mr Bari’s cross-application to 18 October 2017.  Her Honour awarded costs of the summary judgment application against the company on an indemnity basis.  The reason for that order is easily identified: the application was the second one for summary judgment within 5 months and it is apparent from the orders that her Honour considered no good basis for a second application was demonstrated.  Again, Ms Chavan appeared on the application for the company.
  7. [8]
    On 18 October 2017, Mr Bari’s adjourned application came before me.  I granted Ms Chavan leave to appear for the company.[1] Various orders were made on that day which are not relevant to these reasons, except to note that security for costs was not ordered, though leave was given for a further application to be filed within 21 days.  None was.
  8. [9]
    On 13 November 2017, Ms Chavan caused the company to file its third summary judgment application.  The basis of that application was the failure of Mr Bari to file a further application for security for costs.  That is not a basis for a summary judgment order. Ms Chavan’s belief that it was, reflected a substantial misconception principles of civil litigation.
  9. [10]
    The matter came before me on 30 November 2017.  I dismissed the application.  By that stage, Ms Chavan’s conduct of the proceedings on behalf of the company was demonstrably legally inadequate and emotive, and was causing the company to incur liabilities for costs which it appeared unable or unwilling to pay. In those circumstances, I also refused Ms Chavan leave to appear for the company.  
  10. [11]
    I also ordered that the matter be managed by me, that any further application be heard by me and that any such applications were to be referred to my associate.
  11. [12]
    Between January 2019 and September 2020, Ms Chavan caused the company to issue a number of Notices of Non-Party Disclosure. One was issued to the State of Queensland on 18 August 2020.  The State served an objection under the UCPR.
  12. [13]
    On 22 July 2021, Ms Chavan filed an application on behalf of the company to vacate the stay of the Notice. 
  13. [14]
    On 3 August 2021, Ms Anne Meagher gave notice to the Registry of the Court that the company had been wound up on the application of the State on 22 July 2021 and that she had been appointed liquidator.  An order by Justice Martin of the Supreme Court confirmed those matters.
  14. [15]
    The 22 July application came before me on 5 August 2021.  Ms Meagher appeared for the company.  Mr Bari did not appear.  The State was also represented.  Ms Chavan sought to appear, and did appear, by video-link.  She was intensely emotional during the hearing.  Ms Meagher did not press the application and it was dismissed. 
  15. [16]
    I sought to explain to Ms Chavan that the affairs of the company were now in Ms Meagher’s control as liquidator. It was evident Ms Chavan found the situation difficult to accept.  Given the history of the misconceived applications in the proceeding and Ms Chavan’s apparent inability to accept the effect of the liquidation, I made the following further orders:
    1. (a)
      I ordered that no application be filed in the proceedings without my leave;
    2. (b)
      I ordered an injunction restraining Ms Chavan “from taking any step, including issuing any notice of non-party disclosure, any subpoena or any application in this proceeding, until further order.”
  16. [17]
    As Ms Meagher was not in a position at that stage to indicate if she would cause the company to pursue its claim in the proceedings, I adjourned the matter to 5 October 2021 for further directions. 
  17. [18]
    On 24 August 2021, Ms Chavan sent an email to my associate seeking leave to file an outline of argument. My associate responded the same day on my instructions as follows:

Dear Ms Chavan,

His Honour refuses leave to file the document entitled outline of argument or any application related to it.

His Honour also asked me to remind you that [you] are restrained from taking any step in proceeding 1363/17 until further order.

  1. [19]
    Two points should be noted about this exchange.  First, the company had already been wound up by 24 August 2021, but this did not restrain Ms Chavan in purporting to act for the company.  Second, Ms Chavan was reminded that she was restrained from taking any step in the proceeding.
  2. [20]
    Ms Chavan responded in the following terms:

Please remind his Honour that all his orders ‘restraining me’ from everything is not only defeating the purpose this claim was filed, but causing more problems for me (victim harassment).

All these years, the court did nothing but dismissing my application one after another and left me to deal with the QPS and other defendants.

I don’t see any point in continuing with this claim.  I want this claim dismissed with an explanation.

[emphasis in original]

  1. [21]
    On 5 October 2021, Ms Meagher appeared and said she would not cause the company to pursue the proceedings.  No other party appeared.  In the circumstances, I gave Ms Meagher leave to discontinue the proceedings with no order as to costs. Ms Meagher caused that notice to be filed immediately that day.
  2. [22]
    The proceedings are therefore at an end.

Events since the discontinuance of the proceedings

  1. [23]
    On 5 October 2021, Ms Chavan sent an email to my associate asking as to the events on that day in Court.  My associate responded that the Court did not provide advice and directed her to the liquidator.  Ms Chavan responded that afternoon stating, amongst other things:

Just would like to know whether the claim was dismissed or not.  So I can file another one.

  1. [24]
    My associate responded stating that there would be no response to any further correspondence.
  2. [25]
    On 11 October, Ms Chavan sent a further email to my associate raising issues relating to the company’s claim.  No response was sent from my associate consistent with the position stated on 5 October.  On 13 October, Ms Chavan again sent an email raising issues relating to the proceedings.  No response was sent.
  3. [26]
    On 25 October 2021, Ms Chavan sent an email to my associate attaching a new application for summary judgment, asking “Please let me know the date and time for the hearing”.

Leave is refused

  1. [27]
    Leave to file the application for summary judgment is refused.  The reasons are self-evident given the above history.  However, so Ms Chavan fully understands why no further step is possible in these proceedings, I will explain.
  2. [28]
    First, the proceedings have been discontinued by the liquidator.  They are at an end. 
  3. [29]
    Second, the claim was in any event a claim of the company.  Ms Chavan cannot represent the company now that a liquidator has been appointed.  Further, she requires leave to appear for the company in any event.  Her conduct in these proceedings has demonstrated that she has neither the legal skill nor the objectivity required to be permitted to represent the company.  Her conduct has led to the running up of legal costs which the company plainly cannot pay. 
  4. [30]
    The Court recognises Ms Chavan’s sense of grievance in relation to Mr Bari’s involvement in the company’s affairs.  However, that sense of grievance has caused Ms Chavan to involve herself in these proceedings in a manner which has run up costs and which has absorbed considerable Court time.  That needs to cease. 
  5. [31]
    Further, Ms Chavan seems to be acting under the misconception that the Court’s role is to provide advice and to become involved in email conversations about the proceedings and the broader legal matters relating to her dispute with Mr Bari.  That is not the role of the Court. Nor is it the Court’s role to debate the merits of its decisions.  The Court’s role is to adjudicate disputes properly brought before it. 
  6. [32]
    Ms Chavan should cease uninvited correspondence with my associate whether for the purpose of seeking leave to file further applications in this proceeding or for any other purpose.  That includes seeking to query or debate this judgment or the orders made.
  7. [33]
    To reinforce that statement, I make the following orders:
    1. (a)
      Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the orders made 5 August 2021 are set aside;
    2. (b)
      Ms Uttara Chavan is permanently restrained from taking any step in this proceeding, including issuing any notice of non-party disclosure, any subpoena or any application, or from seeking leave from the Court to take any such step in this proceeding. 
  8. [34]
    This proceeding is over. Ms Chavan must accept that fact. Any further attempts to take steps in these proceedings will likely be a contempt of the order in paragraph [33](b).    

Footnotes

[1] She required leave. See Brookfield v RealEstate Now Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 226 at [44] to [46].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Maverick HR Pty Ltd v Ansar Ahmad Abdul Bari & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Maverick HR Pty Ltd v Ansar Ahmad Abdul Bari

  • MNC:

    [2021] QDC 268

  • Court:

    QDC

  • Judge(s):

    Porter QC DCJ

  • Date:

    29 Oct 2021

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Brookfield v RealEstate Now Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 226
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QDC 226
Cite 2 - [2021] QDC 226

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.