Ghosh v Miller

In the case of Ghosh v Miller, the primary concern was the application by Dr Ghosh to suspend the operation of a sequestration order made against her on 30 September 2016 and to annul her bankruptcy, with an alternative request for further or alternative relief. The application was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central dispute revolved around whether Dr Ghosh had established a prima facie case for appeal and whether the balance of convenience favoured the suspension of the sequestration order and the annulment of her bankruptcy.

The court was tasked with determining whether Dr Ghosh had presented a plausible argument for appeal that would warrant the suspension of the sequestration order. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, considering the potential impacts on Dr Ghosh and her family, her financial situation, and the likelihood of her succeeding on appeal. Dr Ghosh argued that she was likely to receive a significant share of the matrimonial property upon the finalisation of her Family Court proceeding, and that she had the means to pay her debts, thus presenting a strong case for appeal.

The court examined the evidence provided by Dr Ghosh, including her financial situation, her potential to repay debts, and the likelihood of success on appeal. The court found that Dr Ghosh had not established a prima facie case for appeal, as she had not demonstrated a significant likelihood of success on appeal or shown that the balance of convenience favoured the suspension of the sequestration order. The court concluded that the sequestration order should remain in effect until the appeal was determined.

Consequently, the court dismissed Dr Ghosh's application for the suspension of the sequestration order and for the annulment of her bankruptcy. The court found that Dr Ghosh had not provided sufficient evidence to warrant the suspension of the order and that the balance of convenience did not favour her. The court's decision was based on the lack of a strong case for appeal and the potential impacts of suspending the sequestration order on the creditor and the administration of justice.