Conlan v Pratt (No 2) - [2013] FCA 105

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Conlan v Pratt (No 2) [2013] FCA 105

Citation: Conlan v Pratt (No 2) [2013] FCA 105

Parties: MARK ANTHONY CONLAN v MICHAEL ROBERT ANTHONY PRATT and SOUTHLAND AGRIBUSINESS HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 109 068 242

File number: WAD 52 of 2012

Judge: MCKERRACHER J

Date of judgment: 8 February 2013

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – validity of order made by Registrar appointing an official liquidator under s 472 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – whether power validly delegated to a Registrar pursuant to a Direction under s 35A(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A(1)

Cases cited:
Amos v Monsour Pty Ltd (formerly Monsour Legal Costs Pty Ltd) [2010] FCA 741

Chisholm v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 1234

Commonwealth of Australia v Hospital Contribution Fundof Australia (1982) 150 CLR 49
Conlan v Pratt [2013] FCA 19
Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84
Lane v Morrison (2009) 239 CLR 230

Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Nedlands Pty Ltd (in liq) (2000) 99 FCR 554

The Queen v Davison (1954) 90 CLR 353

Re Socket Screw & Fastener Distributors (NSW) Pty Ltd (in prov liq) (1994) 51 FCR 599
Taylor v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1999) 42 ATR 220

Totev v Sfar (2008) 167 FCR 193

Date of hearing: 8 February 2013

Place: Perth

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 15

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear

Counsel for the Respondents: MRA Pratt appeared in person for the respondents

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 52 of 2012

BETWEEN:
MARK ANTHONY CONLAN
Applicant

AND:
MICHAEL ROBERT ANTHONY PRATT
First Respondent

SOUTHLAND AGRIBUSINESS HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 109 068 242
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MCKERRACHER J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 FEBRUARY 2013

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.The disposition of the truck with registration number KBC 686A (formerly, 1CBA 538) (Truck) from PB Enterprises (WA) Pty Ltd to the second respondent is void.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2.The second respondent deliver the Truck into the custody of Ross’s Auctioneers & Valuers at Lot 5 Great Eastern Highway, Kalgoorlie within 7 days of this order.
3.The second respondent deliver an executed Department of Transport form ‘Notification of Change of Ownership’ in respect of the Truck to the applicant’s legal representative, HopgoodGanim within 7 days of this order.

4. The respondents pay the costs of the application to be taxed if not agreed.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 52 of 2012

BETWEEN:
MARK ANTHONY CONLAN
Applicant

AND:
MICHAEL ROBERT ANTHONY PRATT
First Respondent

SOUTHLAND AGRIBUSINESS HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 109 068 242
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MCKERRACHER J

DATE:

8 FEBRUARY 2013

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from the transcript)

Before fixing the time for delivery…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Conlan v Pratt (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FCA 105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Conlan v Pratt (No 2) involved the applicant, Mr Conlan, and the respondents, Mr Pratt and PB Enterprises (WA) Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the validity of a transaction involving the sale and subsequent transfer of ownership of a truck with registration number KBC 686A, previously registered as 1CBA 538. The core issue was whether the sale of the truck by the company to the second respondent was lawful and binding.

The court had to determine if the respondent, Mr Pratt, could validly argue the sale's nullity based on jurisdictional grounds or the perceived invalidity of the court. The legal issues included the interpretation of the Federal Court's jurisdiction under section 35A of the Federal Court of Australia Act, and whether previous cases such as Lane v Morrison and Davison could be applied to invalidate the sale. The court considered whether the Federal Court's delegation of powers could affect the outcome of this matter.

The court found that the arguments presented by Mr Pratt did not hold weight as the jurisdictional challenges and the reliance on earlier cases were not applicable in this context. The court's jurisdiction was upheld, and the delegation of powers under section 35A of the Federal Court of Australia Act was deemed sufficient to address the matter at hand. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant and declared the disposition of the truck from PB Enterprises (WA) Pty Ltd to the second respondent void. Orders were made for the second respondent to hand over the truck and a change of ownership form to the applicant's legal representative within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the application if not agreed upon.

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

Lane v Morrison, dealing with an entirely different concept, namely, rejecting the validity of a court itself, does not therefore assist Mr Pratt in his argument. To the extent the Davison case might have assisted at all, it has been displaced by the creation of this Court and the express delegation of powers pursuant to s 35A(1) FCA.Conclusion On the strength of the authorities and on the basis of the Delegation, the argument raised by Mr Pratt cannot succeed. So, while I am sympathetic to Mr Pratt’s position, I must make orders in accordance with the applicant’s minute of proposed orders (which I have modified). The following declaration is made:1.The disposition of the truck with registration number KBC 686A (formerly, 1CBA 538) (Truck) from PB Enterprises (WA) Pty Ltd to the second respondent is void. The Court orders that:2.The second respondent deliver the Truck into the custody of Ross’s Auctioneers & Valuers at Lot 5 Great Eastern Highway, Kalgoorlie within 7 days of this order.3.The second respondent deliver an executed Department of Transport form ‘Notification of Change of Ownership’ in respect of the Truck to the applicant’s legal representative, HopgoodGanim within 7 days of this order.4.The respondents pay the costs of the application to be taxed if not agreed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:		Conlan v Pratt (No 2) [2013] FCA 105
Parties:		MARK ANTHONY CONLAN v MICHAEL ROBERT ANTHONY PRATT and SOUTHLAND AGRIBUSINESS HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 109 068 242
File number:		WAD 52 of 2012
Judge:		MCKERRACHER J
Date of judgment:		8 February 2013
Catchwords:		CORPORATIONS – validity of order made by Registrar appointing an official liquidator under s 472 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – whether power validly delegated to a Registrar pursuant to a Direction under s 35A(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Legislation:		Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A(1)
Cases cited:		Amos v Monsour Pty Ltd (formerly Monsour Legal Costs Pty Ltd) [2010] FCA 741 Chisholm v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 1234 Commonwealth of Australia v Hospital Contribution Fundof Australia (1982) 150 CLR 49 Conlan v Pratt [2013] FCA 19 Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84 Lane v Morrison (2009) 239 CLR 230 Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Nedlands Pty Ltd (in liq) (2000) 99 FCR 554 The Queen v Davison (1954) 90 CLR 353 Re Socket Screw & Fastener Distributors (NSW) Pty Ltd (in prov liq) (1994) 51 FCR 599 Taylor v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1999) 42 ATR 220 Totev v Sfar (2008) 167 FCR 193
Date of hearing:	8 February 2013
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	15
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondents:	MRA Pratt appeared in person for the respondents

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 52 of 2012

JUDGE:	MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 FEBRUARY 2013
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

JUDGE:	MCKERRACHER J
DATE:	8 FEBRUARY 2013
PLACE:	PERTH