FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fleet v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales [2008] FCA 1904
ROBERT FLEET v ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS NEW SOUTH WALES
NSD 1686 of 2004
TAMBERLIN J
9 DECEMBER 2008
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1686 of 2004
BETWEEN: ROBERT FLEET
Appellant
AND: ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS NEW SOUTH WALES
Respondent
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 DECEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.
3.The respondent creditor’s costs of this appeal be treated as part of the costs as petitioning creditor for the purpose of section 109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NSD 1686 of 2004
BETWEEN: ROBERT FLEET
Appellant
AND: ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS NEW SOUTH WALES
Respondent
JUDGE:
TAMBERLIN J
DATE:
9 DECEMBER 2008
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TAMBERLIN J
This is a notice of motion filed by Dr Fleet on 13 November 2008, seeking to set aside orders made by Justice Bennett on 2 June 2005.
I am satisfied that the applicant in this matter has failed to prosecute the proceeding with due diligence, and has failed to appear before the court this morning, being aware of the matter having been set down for hearing this morning. I note that a fax was sent to the court on 8 December 2008 at 9:14 pm, simply saying that Dr Fleet was not in a position to attend, but no reason whatsoever was given for this. And I note that on a proceeding yesterday Dr Fleet did not appear before the court.
I make an order under O 35A r 2(1)(f) of the Federal Court Rules dismissing the notice of motion in relation to orders 1, 2 and 3, as sought in the notice of motion. I note that orders 4 and 5 have been dismissed by Bennett J on a previous occasion.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin. Associate:
Dated: 9 December 2008
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S. Nash
Date of Hearing: 9 December 2008 Date of Judgment: 9 December 2008
- AGLC
- Fleet v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals New South Wales [2008] FCA 1904
- Case
- [2008] FCA 1904
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court needed to address were primarily whether the primary judge had erred in dismissing Fleet’s appeal against the bankruptcy declaration and in awarding costs to the respondent. The court had to examine the grounds of appeal raised by Fleet and determine whether they were valid. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the award of costs to the respondent was justified under the circumstances of the case.
The court found that the primary judge was correct in dismissing Fleet’s appeal against the bankruptcy declaration. The evidence demonstrated that Fleet owed a significant debt to the respondent, which remained unpaid despite repeated demands. The court concluded that the respondent had made out its case for a bankruptcy declaration and that the primary judge’s decision was supported by the evidence. As for the costs, the court held that the respondent was entitled to an award of costs given the nature of the appeal and the outcome. The appeal was dismissed, and Fleet was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, with the respondent creditor’s costs of this appeal treated as part of the costs as petitioning creditor for the purpose of section 109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.
3. The respondent creditor’s costs of this appeal be treated as part of the costs as petitioning creditor for the purpose of section 109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
Note:
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
Established by: TAMBERLIN J
Full text does not contain this section.