Cristovao v Tan & Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd

In the case of Cristovao v Tan & Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd, the appellant, Cristovao, sought to appeal a sequestration order made against him. The case has a complicated history, with numerous previous legal proceedings involving Cristovao and his former solicitors, Tan & Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd. The appeal was dismissed by the court, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal from his estate. The appellant raised several contentions in the appeal, including that the primary judge should have disqualified himself, failed to go behind the judgment, and found that there was other sufficient cause not to make a sequestration order. The court found no merit in these contentions and dismissed the appeal. The court also considered whether the failure of the respondent to disclose professional indemnity insurance during proceedings in the state court meant that the costs order relied upon for the bankruptcy notice was invalid. The court found that this argument had no basis and rejected it. Finally, the court considered whether the primary judge erred in rejecting an argument that there had been a breach of the indemnity principle in the process of finding that the underlying debt was still owing. Again, the court found no error and dismissed the appeal.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in any of the ways alleged by the appellant. The application for disqualification was waived by the appellant, and there was no evidence of partiality or actual bias. The court found that the debt was still owing, and there was no basis for going behind the costs judgment to determine whether there was an extant debt. The court also found that the failure of the respondent to disclose professional indemnity insurance did not invalidate the costs order, and there was no breach of the indemnity principle. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.