HABIB v HABIB

This was an Appeal from two interlocutory Orders granted in the course of ongoing litigation among family members regarding jointly owned properties. The Appellants, Azmin and Shahin Habib, challenged Orders requiring the sale of properties, the payment of net proceeds into Court, and a restriction on their ability to bring further Applications until compliance with prior Orders and payment of costs.

The Court found the first Appeal was moot, as the properties had already been sold and proceeds paid into Court. No practical remedy remained, and the Court declined to exercise discretion to hear the Appeal.

Regarding the second Appeal, the Appellants argued that the Chambers Judge granted relief not expressly sought. However, the Court held that in the context of ongoing litigation and in light of the parties’ submissions, the Chambers Judge was entitled to grant the relief under Rule 4.14(1). The Court emphasized that although the payment into Court and the bar on further Applications were not specifically requested in the Application materials, both matters had been discussed at length during the hearing and arose logically from the issues raised. The Chambers Judge’s decision was also supported by the lack of accounting for sale proceeds, and the Appellants’ repeated disregard for prior Court Orders.

The Court further noted that Rule 1.3 justified the Chambers Judge’s approach, as the Orders made were necessary to provide a fair, timely, and cost-effective resolution of the issues before the Court, particularly given the Appellants’ pattern of vexatious and obstructive litigation conduct.

Both Appeals were dismissed.