FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mandhan v Toyota Finance Australia Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 3

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The applicant’s Interlocutory application dated 29 July 2019 be dismissed.

2.    The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the Interlocutory application.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BESANKO J:

1    This is an interlocutory application by Mr Sammar B Mandhan in which he seeks the following orders:

Applicant is seeking leave, so that Toyota Motor Corporation [TMC], Toyota Motor Australia [TMA] and Toyota financial Services Corporation [TFSC] can be made party to the matter SAD258 of 2018 as respondent due to the following reason;

►    To direct and procure the commission from the fraudulent misrepresentation of true & correct information given by applicant.

►    To achieve causing damage to the applicant.

►    Intentionally induced and made and/or kept the applicant a financial debtor another form of slavery.

(Original formatting retained.)

2    The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr Mandhan.

3    Mr Mandhan appears in person. I proceed on the basis that his interlocutory application is an application for orders that Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Australia and Toyota Financial Services Corporation be joined as respondents to this proceeding.

4    Mr Mandhan’s claims relate to a loan agreement between himself and the existing respondent, Toyota Finance Australia Limited (Toyota Finance). The loan agreement related to the purchase of a vehicle from a business known as Peter Kittle Toyota. As I said in earlier reasons dealing with another interlocutory application issued by Mr Mandhan, it is not always easy to discern precisely what it is that Mr Mandhan is alleging or claiming (Mandhan v Toyota Finance Australia Limited [2019] FCA 2124). It seems that Mr Mandhan alleges that Toyota Finance should not have offered to provide finance to him. It seems that Mr Mandhan alleges that Toyota Finance should have understood and taken into account certain matters associated with Mr Mandhan’s obligation to pay rent and the level of his monthly expenses which, had it done so, would have meant that it would not have made the offer of finance to him. There also appears to be an issue as to the construction of an alleged forbearance said to have been offered to Mr Mandhan by Toyota Finance.

5    The relevant rule of court for joinder in the circumstances of this case is r 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). In addition to the other requirements for joinder, Mr Mandhan must show that he has “an arguable case against the proposed respondents, at least to the standard of being able to resist an application for summary judgment by the proposed respondent had he or she been sued in separate proceedings” (Review Australia Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1009; (2003) 58 IPR 366 at [5] per Heerey J (Review Australia)).

6    There have been a number of interlocutory hearings in this proceeding. Toyota Finance has made it clear at a number of these interlocutory hearings that it does not dispute that Peter Kittle Toyota and those of its employees involved in this matter acted at all times as Toyota Finance’s agent. I refer to the interlocutory hearing on 9 November 2018 (Transcript p 3); the interlocutory hearing on 20 December 2018 (Transcript p 2); and the interlocutory hearing on 7 June 2019 (Transcript p 4).

7    The exact basis upon which Mr Mandhan seeks the joinder of Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Australia and Toyota Financial Services Corporation is not entirely clear. Mr Mandhan annexes to his affidavit a Wikipedia entry which deals with a number of entities, including Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Australia, Toyota Financial Services Corporation and the respondent, Toyota Finance. It seems that there are a large number of companies in the Toyota Motor Corporation group and in the Toyota Financial Services Corporation group. In his written submissions dated 2 January 2020, Mr Mandhan seems to identify as relevant to joinder the following: (1) a common policy and procedure in loan approvals across various group companies; and (2) fraudulent practices throughout the companies. However, there is no suggestion in any of the evidence produced by Mr Mandhan to the effect that the existing respondent, Toyota Finance, was not acting as the principal in its dealings with Mr Mandhan. Furthermore, although Mr Mandhan makes allegations of fraudulent practices throughout the organisation (in respect of which he claims that there should be an audit), there is no evidence to support those allegations. In those circumstances, it has not been shown that there is an arguable case against Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Australia and Toyota Financial Services Corporation in the sense described by Heerey J in Review Australia.

8    The application for joinder of those companies must be dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:    7 January 2020