 |
| From left: Simran "Roselyn" Singh - Dr Mirza Baig - John Frisken |
Roselyn Singh (alias Simran Singh) attempted to defraud the NSW Govt of over $45Million. Justice Pepper was scathing of Singh when handing down her Principal judgment. Singh used the alias "Simran Singh" in her fraudulant claim. Roselyn Singh is listed with ASIC under at least 7 different names, dates and places of birth. Singh also claims to have a PhD, MBA, and B.Coms (hons) however her claims to these tertiary qualifications have proven to be false.
In late 2016, Sydney Metro served a proposed acquisition notice on Roselyn Singh alias Simran Singh and Dr Mirza Baig's business, UTSG Pty Ltd (“UTSG”) in respect of its leasehold interest in premises located at Vhealth Plus 40 Park Street, Sydney, for the purposes of construction of the Sydney Metro – City and South West Project.
Sydney Metro had already acquired the freehold interest in the Park Street property, and advised UTSG they required vacant possession of the property by April 2017 and that rent remained payable for occupation of the premises. Singh and her business partner Dr Baig refused to pay rent and submitted a claim for compensation.
The following is extracted directly from Justice Rachel Pepper's Principal Judgement on the compensation claim:
UTSG repeatedly failed to comply with directions of the Court, which had the result of delaying the commencement of the final hearing and resulted in unnecessary expenditure by Sydney Metro. For example, the Court found in August 2018 that the length and volume of interlocutory applications in the proceedings were “characterised by UTSG’s continual default and non-compliance with court orders” (UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro [2018] NSWLEC 128 at [34]). The dates originally listed for hearing in August 2018 were vacated because Mr Mullins withdrew his expert report and that “the withdrawal of his expert opinion was caused by the failure of UTSG to properly instruct and brief Mr Mullins” (UTSG at [54]). UTSG also repeatedly failed to comply with its obligation to produce documents (UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 2) [2018] NSWLEC 199 at [25]-[38]). This continued through the proceedings (UTSG Pty Ltd v Sydney Metro (No 5) [2019] NSWLEC 107 at [15]);
The amount of compensation determined by the VG and offered to UTSG, namely, $2,136,834, was not only premised on the misleading financial information contained in the Goodyer report, it was manifestly excessive in light of the evidence now before the Court. It was not in any event accepted by UTSG. UTSG expressly declined to accept compensation in this sum at various times during the hearing;
UTSG’s claim for compensation continually changed resulting in wasted costs for Sydney Metro as claims were abandoned and added. The initial quantification of its claim for compensation in its points of claim filed on 10 May 2018 was approximately $19 million for relocation, or in the alternative, $48 million for extinguishment. During the hearing it abandoned its claim for business extinguishment. By the time it made its closing address on 13 December 2019 its claim was in excess of $45 million for relocation. Such conduct was unreasonable.
The various amounts of compensation claimed by UTSG were never supported by credible reliable evidence. At all stages of the proceedings the amount of compensation claimed by UTSG was completely untenable.
Undeterred by a paucity of evidence, and in the face of cogent and detailed lay and expert evidence adduced by Sydney Metro, UTSG continued to maintain its position throughout the proceedings.
As detailed in this judgment, Ms Singh sought to advance UTSG’s claim for compensation by relying on fraudulent and doctored documents, by inventing fictitious entities, and by lying about important matters both in her written and oral evidence.
UTSG attempted to rely on evidence that was unfairly prejudicial to Sydney Metro or caused costs to be wasted insofar as the evidence was either served late (such as the additional material served by UTSG on the first day of the hearing, the report from Njoro & Associates concerning the Business Sale Agreement attached to a supplementary report of Mr Watts dated 1 April 2019, or the material that UTSG sought to tender after its case had closed on the third last day of the hearing (Ex F: T1257:24-26)), was withdrawn by UTSG (such as the evidence of Mr John Frisken, Mr Hollins and Mr Dunn), or the relevant witnesses were not available for cross-examination (for example, Mr Allsopp, Dr Shakoor and Mr Fahad).
The scandalous and baseless accusations UTSG continually made throughout the hearing impugning the character and integrity of the legal representatives of Sydney Metro.
On any view, the conduct of the litigation was unreasonable and improper. Ms Singh was largely responsible for UTSG persistently failing to comply with Court orders which caused repeated delay and unnecessary costs, she fabricated documents (the Business Sale Agreement and the doctored email,) and other evidence, (the existence of entities such as LPAA, Cara Adams, Jessica Cheung and TaxSavvy), and gave evidence that she knew to be false both in her affidavits and orally.
Ms Simran Roselyn Singh (also known as Ms Roselyn Singh) is jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings.
Will Singh now be investigated for this attempted fraud on NSW Tax Payers? We'll keep you posted.
Link to the Principal Judgement.
A summary of the Judgement by Mathews Folbigg Lawyers
If you have a story about 'Roselyn Singh' (or Simran Singh) use the "submit your story" at the top of this page.
False Allegations by "Roselyn Singh" Ends Up With A High Court Ruling Against NSW Police
Singh and Frisken made false accusations including providing doctored evidence causing an arrest which ended in the High Court. Todate Singh has not been investigated by NSW Police for making False accusations - a criminal offence / 7 years Jail.
The Roselyn Singh File - One of Sydney's most prolific fraudsters.
