Di Iorio v Wagener

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Di Iorio v Wagener [2015] FCA 524

Citation: Di Iorio v Wagener [2015] FCA 524
Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Wagener v Di Iorio [2015] FCCA 322
Parties: PETER DI IORIO v GARY WAGENER TRADING AS WAGENER BUILDING SERVICES
File number: QUD 61 of 2015
Judge: RANGIAH J
Date of judgment: 28 May 2015
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – application for leave to appeal – whether Federal Circuit Court erred in refusing extension of time to review sequestration order – whether grounds to go behind QCAT decision – whether fraud, collusion or miscarriage of justice – no basis to go behind QCAT decision
Legislation: Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 104
Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 (Cth) r 2.03
Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth) ss 40(1), 41(1), 43, 52 and 52(1)(c)
Cases cited: Corney v Brien (1951) 84 CLR 343
SBBS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) 194 ALR 749 at [44]; [2002] FCAFC 361
Wren v Mahony (1972) 126 CLR 212
Date of hearing: 21 May 2015
Place: Brisbane
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 31
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Garlick

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 61 of 2015

BETWEEN:

PETER DI IORIO
Applicant

AND:

GARY WAGENER TRADING AS WAGENER BUILDING SERVICES
Respondent

JUDGE:

RANGIAH J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MAY 2015

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 61 of 2015

BETWEEN:

PETER DI IORIO
Applicant

AND:

GARY WAGENER TRADING AS WAGENER BUILDING SERVICES
Respondent

JUDGE:

RANGIAH J

DATE:

28 MAY 2015

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant, Peter Di Iorio seeks leave to appeal against an interlocutory judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia given on 9 February 2015.  The Federal Circuit Court dismissed Mr Di Iorio’s application for an extension of time to seek review of a sequestration order made by a Registrar. 

  2. It is necessary to set out something of the procedural history of Mr Di Iorio’s litigation in order to place the present application into context.

  3. Mr Di Iorio was a registered builder.  The respondent, Gary Wagener, is a tradesman who seems to have specialised in cladding work.  Mr Di Iorio engaged Mr Wagener to perform work in 2010, but a dispute ensued.  Mr Wagener took proceedings against Mr Di Iorio in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“QCAT”), claiming that he was owed a debt of $8,150.  A contested hearing took place on 26 August 2010, and an order was made that Mr Di Iorio pay Mr Wagener the sum of $8,240. 

  4. The QCAT order was filed in the Magistrates Court of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Di Iorio v Wagener 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
[2015] FCA 524
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Di Iorio v Wagener involved an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Circuit Court, which had dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time to review a sequestration order made by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The applicant, seeking to challenge the validity of the sequestration order, contended that there were grounds to go behind the QCAT decision, including fraud, collusion, or a miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there were exceptional circumstances that justified allowing the applicant to appeal against the Federal Circuit Court's refusal to extend the time limit for reviewing the QCAT order. The applicant argued that there were sufficient grounds to go behind the QCAT decision, namely fraud, collusion, or a miscarriage of justice. The court was required to determine whether these grounds were sufficient to warrant an appeal.

The court held that the applicant had not established a sufficient basis to go behind the QCAT decision. The applicant's claims of fraud, collusion, or a miscarriage of justice were not substantiated. The court found that the applicant had failed to provide compelling evidence to support these claims. Consequently, the court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances to allow the appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

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

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.