PLAINTIFF SEEKS FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF THE CASE FOR BEING A DUPLICATE OF A PREVIOUS PROCEEDING
Nguyen v Grancroft Pty Limited [2020] NSWSC 1644 (18 November 2020)
This case involves the plaintiff seeking for the summary dismissal of the case for being a duplicate of a previous proceeding which amounts to an abuse of process.
Facts:
The dispute centres on a motel in Cairns called the Rainbow Motor Inn. Until 2015 the defendant Grancroft Pty Ltd (“Grancroft”) was the registered proprietor of the motel as trustee for a unit trust called the Rainbow Motor Inn Unit Trust (“RMIUT”). Originally 45 per cent of the units (nine out of the issued twenty) belonged to a discretionary trust established for the benefit of Alan and his family. The court refers to this trust as the Alan Jorgensen Family Trust.
The dispute arises out of a transaction in 1992. Brian, through a company called Mainrace Pty Limited (“Mainrace”), bought the RMIUT unit holding belonging to the Alan Jorgensen Family Trust from a receiver appointed by Alan’s financier, ANZ.
This is the tenth case to have been brought since 2015 by Alan or parties associated with him about the Mainrace sale or subsequent corporate dealings within Grancroft. The plaintiff in these proceedings is Tieu My Nguyen (“Tieu”). She is Alan’s de facto wife and her claim in the proceedings purports to be made on behalf of the Alan Jorgensen Family Trust.
The first proceedings concerning the sale, or the subsequent transactions affecting Grancroft, were brought in the Queensland Supreme Court by a company called Mantonella Pty Limited (“Mantonella”). That is (or was) a company controlled by Alan and he conducted the proceedings on its behalf. Mantonella claimed to have been appointed as the trustee of the Alan Jorgensen Family Trust in December 2004.
Issue: Should the proceeding be summarily dismissed?
Law:
Analysis:
In the course of hearing it became clear that Tieu has little idea of what the case is about. In fact she has only limited command of English. It is obvious that in bringing the proceedings she is acting at Alan’s behest, and he is the author of the affidavit and submissions attributed to her.
The proceedings have nothing to do with New South Wales and there is no justification for their being brought or continued in the courts of this State. At a minimum the proceedings should be transferred to Queensland as Brereton J did with the 2015 Corporations List proceedings. But in the light of later events the courts think it should go further. These proceedings not only duplicate the Mantonella proceedings still pending in Queensland, they are an attempt to evade the vexatious litigant orders made by Daubney J in 2015. They are clearly an abuse of process.
Conclusion: Grancroft’s application succeeds. The proceedings will be summarily dismissed.
