Singhal v Finsure Finance & Insurance Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 23 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] FCA 1681
• Date: 23 December 2025
• Court: Federal Court

Federal Court of Australia

Singhal v Finsure Finance & Insurance Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1681

ORDERS

VID 756 of 2024
BETWEEN:	PARVESH BALA SINGHAL Applicant
AND:	FINSURE FINANCE AND INSURANCE PTY LTD Respondent

order made by:	O'BRYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 December 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The proceeding be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

O’BRYAN J:

Introduction

1 On 31 July 2024, the applicant, Parvesh Bala Singhal, commenced this proceeding against Finsure Finance & Insurance Pty Ltd (Finsure) by filing an originating application and concise statement.

2 Ms Singhal is not legally represented. Unfortunately, the claims stated in her concise statement were ‘scattergun’ in nature. Over a considerable period of time, attempts have been made by Registrars of the Court to clarify the claims sought to be made by Ms Singhal, and to mediate the dispute between Ms Singhal and Finsure. As discussed below, some clarity has been brought to the claims, but mediation has been unsuccessful.

3 By interlocutory application dated 3 April 2025, Ms Singhal sought leave to join the Bank of Queensland Ltd (BOQ) as a second respondent to the proceeding (joinder application). Ms Singhal also filed a statement of claim. The statement of claim included BOQ as the second respondent, even though Ms Singhal’s joinder application had not been heard and no order had been made joining BOQ at that time. That application was supported by two affidavits of Ms Singhal, both of which were affirmed on 2 April 2025 (but the front page of one of the affidavits mistakenly bears the date 10 November 2024, and the front page of the other affidavit mistakenly bears the date 6 December 2024). The claims sought to be made by Ms Singhal in the statement of claim were, again, not clearly expressed; indeed, many of the allegations were unintelligible.

4 On 13 June 2025, I made orders requiring the parties to attend a confidential conferral before a Registrar of the Court for the purpose of seeking to agree a list of factual and legal issues for determination in the proceeding that provide arguable grounds for relief in the Federal Court. The orders required the Registrar, at the conclusion of the confidential conference, to provide to the Court any list of issues that had been agreed between the parties and, in the absence of agreement between the parties, any list of issues accepted by Ms Singhal and any list of issues accepted by Finsure.

5 The parties participated in the conferral. On 26 August 2025, the Registrar provided the Court with a list of issues. Unfortunately, there was not full agreement between the parties. On 28 August 2025, Ms Singhal provided a further version of the list of issues with her proposed amendments (amended list of issues).

6 By application dated 17 October 2025, Finsure sought orders for the summary dismissal of the proceeding under r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (dismissal application). The dismissal application was supported by an affidavit of Steven John Brown, the solicitor for Finsure, dated 17 October 2025. The affidavit set out the history of the proceeding and an earlier proceeding brought by Ms Singhal in the County Court of Victoria.

7 A final attempt at mediation was made during November 2025, but the mediation was unsuccessful.

8 Following the failure of mediation, both interlocutory applications were heard on 15 December 2025. BOQ sought, and was granted, leave to appear to oppose the joinder application.

9 The principal issue that arises on the dismissal application is whether Ms Singhal’s proceeding properly enlivens the jurisdiction of this Court. It is well established that the “first duty of any Court, in approaching a cause before it, is to consider its jurisdiction”: Hazeldell Ltd v The Commonwealth (1924) 34 CLR 442 at 446 (Isaacs ACJ). See also Federated Engine‑Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (1911) 12 CLR 398 at 415 (Griffith CJ) and Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn (2022) 276 CLR 216 (Citta) at [62] (Edelman J).

10 In the proceeding to date, Ms Singhal has filed numerous affidavits. I have principally had regard to the two affidavits affirmed on 2 April 2025 for the purpose of understanding the claims sought to be made by Ms Singhal.

11 I note for completeness that, after judgment was reserved on 15 December 2025, Ms Singhal sent to my chambers a further written submission and a bundle of documents. Ms Singhal did not apply for leave to re-open her case and adduce further evidence. I recognise that, as a self-represented litigant, Ms Singhal is likely unaware that, without leave of the Court, a litigant is not entitled to advance further submissions and adduce further evidence on an application that has been heard by the Court and judgment reserved. Nevertheless, even if Ms Singhal had applied, I would not have granted leave. That is for three reasons. First, Ms Singhal has been given ample opportunity to put relevant submissions and evidence before the Court prior to the hearing. Second, it would be unfair to Finsure to delay further the determination of the dismissal application. Third, the Court has finite resources and many cases to hear. Litigants are provided with an opportunity to present their case. Without very good reason, litigants are not provided with a second opportunity to present their case. Otherwise, the Court cannot dispose efficiently of its overall case load. Having regard to the procedural history of this case, I consider that there is no justification for affording Ms Singhal a further opportunity to present her case. I have therefore disregarded the further submissions and documents provided by Ms Singhal.

12 For the reasons explained below, I consider that none of the claims made by Ms Singhal against either Finsure or BOQ in the proceeding properly invoke federal jurisdiction. The proceeding must therefore be dismissed.

Background

13 The following background facts have been drawn from Ms Singhal’s concise statement and her affidavits dated 2 April 2025. I have assumed the correctness of the facts solely to determine the competing interlocutory applications.

14 On or about 9 October 2019, Ms Singhal entered into an ‘Introducer Agreement’ with Finsure (the agreement). Finsure is the holder of an Australian credit licence under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) and was referred to in the agreement as an “aggregator”. Ms Singhal was a credit representative of Finsure and was referred to in the agreement as an “introducer”. Pursuant to the agreement, Ms Singhal introduced loan applications for home, vehicle or personal loans to lenders using Finsure’s software system, for which she paid Finsure a monthly fee and received commissions from lenders for loans that were successfully brokered. Finsure collected commissions on behalf of Ms Singhal from the lenders.

15 In about July 2023, Finsure conducted an audit of loans initiated by Ms Singhal as a result of concerns being raised by ME Bank (a subsidiary of BOQ) and National Australia Bank. On 15 July 2023, Finsure staff interviewed Ms Singhal. The results of the audit, as well as notes about the interview with Ms Singhal, were recorded in a document titled “Broker Incident Report” signed on 16 November 2023.

16 Following the audit, on 11 August 2023, BOQ terminated Ms Singhal’s accreditation with the bank. On 8 November 2023, Finsure suspended Ms Singhal’s access to Finsure’s system and her authority to submit loan applications to Finsure under the agreement. On 28 November 2023, Finsure terminated the agreement.

17 It appears that Finsure has withheld certain commissions from Ms Singhal pending the resolution of complaints made about Ms Singhal to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). These complaints were resolved in or about May 2025, however Finsure continues to withhold the commissions while this proceeding is on foot. By its defence, Finsure alleges that it is entitled to withhold the commissions because it has a right to be indemnified by Ms Singhal under cl 10 of the agreement (having incurred costs and expenses due to Ms Singhal’s conduct).

18 Following the suspension of the agreement, Ms Singhal sought to move to a different aggregator. Those aggregators requested a reference check of Ms Singhal from Finsure. Finsure provided reference checks to several aggregators and to AFCA in 2023 and 2024.

Statement of Ms Singhal’s claims

19 As noted above, on 13 June 2025, I made orders requiring the parties to attend a confidential conferral before a Registrar of the Court for the purpose of seeking to agree a list of factual and legal issues for determination in the proceeding that provide arguable grounds for relief in the Federal Court. On 26 August 2025, the Registrar provided the Court with a list of issues. On 28 August 2025, Ms Singhal provided an amended list of issues.

20 At the hearing on 15 December 2025, Ms Singhal confirmed that she sought to bring the following claims against Finsure, which were reflected in Ms Singhal’s amended list of issues:

(a) First, Finsure's decision to suspend the agreement and withhold commissions constituted a breach of the agreement (the breach of...