Pointless I

This is the first in a series of three posts about Yau Hang Chan, vexatious litigant who currently faces the prospect of prosecution for contempt of court.

Like all long and sad tails, the beginning must lie buried in the mists of time, but it is necessary to begin somewhere.

Tenancy appeal

In February 2003 Yau Hang Chan entered into a residential tenancy agreement in respect of a room in a building at Croydon, for the term of one year commencing on 8 February 2003 and ending on 7 February 2004.  That, you might observe, is pretty much the most humble rental accommodation possible.  You can assume Chan was not a man of any substantial means.

On 3 December, the landlord gave him notice that he had to leave at the end of the term.  Chan did not leave and the landlords quite briskly obtained an order from the Residential Tenancy Tribunal for his eviction in March 2004.  Chan resisted this order by appealing (I infer some time in March 2004) to the Supreme Court, on grounds, mostly procedural, which were ultimately found to be baseless on 13 August 2004.  It counts as a mercy that he was then given until 27 August 2004 before the eviction order could be carried out.  He reached the end of the road with an application to the Court of Appeal for a stay pending an appeal to the court which was rejected on 24 August 2004.  Evictions are rarely carried out on the very first possible day, but nevertheless you can assume he was out pretty soon after that.

This must have been a dark time for Mr Chan.  On the other hand by his resistance he had effectively extended his occupation of the room for about six months, which was a pretty good result.

Chan’s situation was apparently desperate enough for him to be allocated public housing, which he moved into on 18 February 2005.

Unsuccessful TAFE studies proceedings 

By then Chan had enrolled in January 2005 in a course at Ultimo TAFE.  In the second half of that year he was enrolled in the subject “Develop and Apply Knowledge of the Library/Information Services Industries.”  This ran from July to 30 November. On 15 November his teacher informed him that he had failed a group presentation assessment task.

On 16 November 2005 Chan commenced proceedings challenging this in the Supreme Court against the the teacher personally and the TAFE Commission.  When the matter first came before the court on 20 November it was stood down to give the parties the chance to reach a negotiated resolution.  Mr Chan wanted to withdraw from the course without penalty.  The TAFE Commission said that he could withdraw but that a fail would still be recorded.  Chan withdrew and a fail was recorded.  You can see that from his position the negotiations were fruitless and probably they were always going to be.  Chan continued his proceedings.  These were ultimately summarily dismissed by Master Malpass (actually by then he was an Associate Justice but Master Malpass has a much more satisfying ring) in June 2006.

Mr Chan appealed unsuccessfully against this.  He made FOI requests and appealed decisions against them.  In 2008 he commenced fresh proceedings against his TAFE teachers’ superiors with claims in defamation, misfeasance in public office and negligence.  Those claims, other than the claim for defamation, were dismissed in December 2009.

Public Housing complaints

Meanwhile, almost as soon as Chan had moved into his public housing, he came into dispute with the Housing Department (a loose term because there were name changes for the relevant entity from time to time).  Some of these he agitated in proceedings in the CTTT (the Tenancy tribunal) leading to a deed of settlement in 2006.

Claims by Chan eventually included that, from the outset, the Department had wrongfully backdated his lease by one day, that officials had defamed him, and various matters concerning condition reports and smoke detectors.  In March 2008, Chan commenced proceedings against the Department.  In 2008 he also commenced proceedings against an officer of the Department for defamation (and other matters) in relation to a letter she had sent him about inspection of smoke alarms in his property.  Both proceedings were ultimately dismissed as hopeless by Justice McCallum in August 2009.

The train ticket subpoenas

On 22 January 2007, Rail Corp brought proceedings in Sutherland Local Court against Chan for allegedly travelling on a train without a ticket.  This led to satellite proceedings commenced by Chan in April 2008 against the Local Court (a magistrate had set aside a subpoena) and even (in December 2008) against an employee of Railcorp who had appeared for Railcorp in the proceedings against the magistrate to inform the court that Railcorp rather than the magistrate was the proper defendant – as a result of which Chan was permitted to amend his summons.  The proceedings against the Railcorp employee were dismissed in April 2009 and those against the Court (by which time the Attorney-General had also been joined) in September 2009.

Perry defamation

On 9 January 2009, Chan commenced proceedings against Ms Perry alleging conspiracy and defamation in a letter she had sent him in December 2007 from the office of the NSW Premier in response to letters from him complaining about certain conduct of the NSW Police Force and about certain legal proceedings.  These proceedings were dismissed by Justice McCallum on 27 November 2009 on the basis that Chan’s pleadings and draft pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action ( Chan v Perry [2009] NSWSC 1293). Along the way Chan made an application that Justice McCallum disqualify herself which she dismissed on 19 November 2009 ( Chan v Perry [2009] NSWSC 1278).

Police FOI case

On 30 December 2009, Chan applied to the ADT  for review of a decision by the NSW Police Force decision in respect of a decision it had made in a relation to a privacy complaint made by him in relation to its COPS records.  This application was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution by Chan.

Constitutional objection to court fees

On 8 February 2010, Chan caused a summons to be issued from the High Court seeking a declaration that Schedule 1 of the Civil Procedure Regulation 2005 (NSW) (relating to court fees) was invalid.  On 10 May 2017 this came before Justice Heydon – transcript here.    Although Chan had failed to file a statement of claim as required by the rules, the case was remitted to the Federal Court.

In the Federal Court Chan also filed a notice of motion seeking that certain Local Court proceedings be stayed.  On 6 August 2010 Justice Perram dismissed that application and ordered that these proceedings be dismissed if Chan had not filed a statement of claim by 30 August 2010 and stayed until he did so.  Chan did file something but in March 2011 Perram J held that it was not a statement of claim and so the proceedings had been dismissed on 30 August 2010.

Local employment training solutions

On 17 May 2010, Chan commenced proceedings in the Federal Court for preliminary discovery against Mr Harris, an employee of Catholic Care Sydney, which operates the Local Employment Training Solutions (LETS) program. Preliminary discovery is a procedure where you can obtain documents relevant to a claim you might have in order to decide whether or against whom to bring it.  On the same day, Chan filed a statement of claim alleging that the report prepared by LETS and provided to Centrelink contained fraudulent and defamatory allegations and that those allegations were part of a conspiracy to injure him.  Both cases came before Justice Cowdroy for case management.

The application for preliminary discovery was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution by Justice Cowdroy on 10 December 2010, but not before Chan had made an unsuccessful application that Cowdroy J disqualify himself because he had presided over a previous application by Chan in May 2009 for preliminary discovery.  Those proceedings were against Tran, an employment consultant to Centrelink, for documents relating to Chan.  Cowdroy J had made orders for preliminary discovery, Tran had produced some documents, Chan complained that production was incomplete and brought a notice of motion against Tran for contempt, Tran produced some more documents, Cowdroy J gave leave to Chan to withdraw the application for contempt and the proceedings were otherwise dismissed by Cowdroy J in June 2009.

Chan appealed against Cowdroy J’s refusal to disqualify himself and then against the final decision.  The appeals were ultimately dismissed (after various collateral issues were raised by Chan) by Justice Katzmann on 11 April 2011.  Chan instituted a fresh appeal which was dismissed by Justice Rares in May 2011.

By then, steps were underway to have Chan declared a vexatious litigant.  That will be the subject of the next post in this series.

 

Tags:

2 Responses to “Pointless I”

  1. Andrew Says:

    Interesting read. He has so much time on his hands. Has he never heard of pornography and masturbation?

  2. Mira Says:

    Mr Chan obviously loves the legal system! Looking forward to finding out how he’ll fight the vexatious litigant charge!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: