Legal Research
Cases
Fewin Pty Ltd v Burke

Fewin Pty Ltd v Burke

Case [2015] NSWSC 1411 25 September 2015

Jurisdiction

Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings

Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch

Insolvency Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Fewin Pty Limited v John Christopher Burke [2015] NSWSC 1411
Hearing dates: 11 September 2015
Date of orders: 25 September 2015
Decision date: 25 September 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
The Court orders:

1. Leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim is refused;

2. The Statement of Claim of 13 August 2014 is dismissed; and
3. Costs as agreed or assessed are awarded in the defendant’s favour.
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – Trustee – Jurisdiction of Federal Court and State Supreme Courts – “special federal matter” – frivolous and vexatious proceedings – dismissal of proceedings etc. for want of due despatch
Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Judiciary Act 1903
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Chamberlain Group Pty Ltd v Kids for Life Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 241
Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 46; (2013) 250 CLR 303; (2013) 303 ALR 199
Maria Gorkowski v Turner [2014] VSC 200; (2014) 285 FLR 66
Re Wakim, Ex parte McNally [1999] HCA 27; (1999) 198 CLR 511
Truthful Endeavours Pty Ltd v Conson [2015] FCAFC; (2015) 231 ALR 483
Turner v Gorkowski [2014] VSCA 248
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: John Christopher Burke (Applicant/ Defendant)
Fewin Pty Limited (Respondent/First Plaintiff)
Ronald Michael Coshott (Respondent/ Second Plaintiff)
Ljiljana Coshott (Respondent/ Third Plaintiff)
Representation:
Counsel:
J.T. Johnson (Applicant)
G. Gee (Respondent)
Solicitors:
O’Neil Partners (Applicant)
Martin Place Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/00238068
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

On 11 September 2015, the defendant made an application before the Court for the proceedings brought by the plaintiff to be dismissed for want of prosecution and an asserted lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to r 12.7 and r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (“UCPR”).
The principal submission of the defendant is that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear, determine, or make orders in these proceedings. It is argued that s 27 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Commonwealth) (“the Bankruptcy Act”) confers exclusive jurisdiction in relation to bankruptcy matters on the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court; and that as the proceedings should be characterised as a “special federal matter” this court is unable to assume jurisdiction via the relevant cross-vesting legislation.
The application is contested by the plaintiffs.

A Brief History of the Proceedings

On 7 November 2008 Robert Gilbert Coshott was declared bankrupt upon the making of a Sequestration Order by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Subsequently, on 18 December 2008, the defendant, John Christopher Burke, was appointed trustee of Mr Coshott’s estate. The defendant was trustee in bankruptcy of the estate from that date until 25 February 2013, when the defendant resigned as trustee of the estate.
It appears that Fewin Pty Limited, being the first plaintiff, is a…

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.

Continue reading Fewin Pty Ltd v Burke

Details

AGLC: Fewin Pty Ltd v Burke [2015] NSWSC 1411
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1411
Decision Date: 25 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fewin Pty Ltd v Burke involved a dispute between a bankrupt, Fewin Pty Ltd, and their trustee, Burke. The primary issue was the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the State Supreme Courts to hear matters related to bankruptcy, specifically whether the proceedings were a "special federal matter" warranting intervention by the Federal Court. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious, and if they should be dismissed for want of due despatch.

The legal issues at hand centred on the jurisdictional boundaries of the Federal Court and the State Supreme Courts in handling bankruptcy proceedings, and whether the proceedings initiated by Fewin Pty Ltd were without merit or being pursued in bad faith. The court had to assess the nature of the claims made by Fewin Pty Ltd and decide if they constituted a "special federal matter" that fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court, or if they could be appropriately addressed by the State Supreme Court. The court also needed to examine whether the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious, potentially warranting dismissal.

The court found that the matters raised by Fewin Pty Ltd did not constitute a "special federal matter" and were therefore within the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Court. Furthermore, the court concluded that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, leading to a dismissal for want of due despatch. The court's reasoning was based on the nature of the claims and the conduct of the parties, which did not justify the intervention of the Federal Court. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining due despatch in legal proceedings and preventing the misuse of court resources through frivolous litigation.

As a result of the court's decision, the proceedings initiated by Fewin Pty Ltd were dismissed. The court ordered that the proceedings be terminated, and it emphasised the need for parties to adhere to the principles of due despatch and to refrain from initiating frivolous or vexatious litigation. This decision reinforces the jurisdictional boundaries between the Federal Court and State Supreme Courts in matters of bankruptcy and highlights the court's commitment to ensuring the efficient and effective use of judicial resources.

Orders