Chia v State Bank of New South Wales Ltd

Case [2000] FCA 1104


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Chia v State Bank of New South Wales Ltd [2000] FCA 1104

PENG TIN CHIA v
STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED, KENNETH JOHN RENNIE, HOYTS MULTI-PLEX CINEMAS PTY LIMITED AND HOYTS CINEMAS LIMITED

N 171 OF 2000

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
4 AUGUST 2000


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 171 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

PENG TIN CHIA
APPLICANT

AND:

STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

KENNETH JOHN RENNIE
SECOND RESPONDENT

HOYTS MULTI-PLEX CINEMAS PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

HOYTS CINEMAS LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 AUGUST 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT NOTES:

That a sequestration order was made against the estate of the applicant by a Registrar of this Court in proceeding No QC7428 of 1998 on 26 April 2000, with the order having been entered on 3 May 2000.

That the third and fourth respondents served notice of the present proceedings on the applicant’s Trustee in Bankruptcy on 19 May 2000.

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.        That the application be dismissed as against the respondents.

2.        The applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the proceedings.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 171 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

PENG TIN CHIA
APPLICANT

AND:

STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

KENNETH JOHN RENNIE
SECOND RESPONDENT

HOYTS MULTI-PLEX CINEMAS PTY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

HOYTS CINEMAS LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE:

4 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In this matter I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which to make an order for dismissal having regard to the decision of Drummond J in Re Gargan; ex parte Gargan v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (18 August 1995, unreported) and the provisions of O 35 of the Federal Court Rules.  Accordingly, I note the matters that are referred to in the first two paragraphs of the short minutes of order and I make the orders contained in paragraphs three and four of the short minutes of order.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin.

Associate:

Dated:             21 August 2000

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance
Solicitor for the first and second Respondents:: Minter Ellison
Solicitor for the third and fourth Respondents: Gilbert and Tobin
Date of Hearing: 4 August 2000
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2000
Details
AGLC
Chia v State Bank of New South Wales Ltd [2000] FCA 1104
Case
[2000] FCA 1104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chia v State Bank of New South Wales Ltd involved Peng Tin Chia, the applicant, against State Bank of New South Wales Limited, Kenneth John Rennie, Hoyts Multi-Plex Cinemas Pty Limited, and Hoyts Cinemas Limited, the respondents. The applicant sought relief in relation to a sequestration order made against his estate by a Registrar of the Federal Court on 26 April 2000, which was entered on 3 May 2000. The third and fourth respondents served notice of the proceedings on the applicant’s Trustee in Bankruptcy on 19 May 2000.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application should be dismissed based on the authority of Re Gargan; ex parte Gargan v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (18 August 1995, unreported) and the relevant provisions of Order 35 of the Federal Court Rules. The court considered the procedural history and the timing of the service of notices, ultimately determining that the application was appropriately dismissed.

Justice Tamberlin, in delivering the judgment, relied on the decision in Re Gargan and the relevant procedural rules to conclude that the application was not properly before the court. The court noted that the application was made after the sequestration order was entered and that the third and fourth respondents had served notice on the Trustee in Bankruptcy, which further supported the dismissal. The court also considered the costs order, directing that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings.

The final orders of the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs. The judgment reflects the court's adherence to established legal principles and procedural requirements, ensuring that the application was appropriately disposed of.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.