Ghosh v Newton

Case [2024] FCA 517

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ghosh v Newton [2024] FCA 517

File number: NSD 408 of 2024
Judgment of: JACKMAN J
Date of judgment: 7 May 2024
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – interlocutory application seeking permission to enter property – where order sought substantially identical to order previously dismissed by duty judge and no evidence of any change in circumstances – application dismissed
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 4.12, 14.01
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 5
Date of hearing: 7 May 2024
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Davis
Solicitor for the Respondent: Stacks Law Firm

ORDERS

NSD 408 of 2024
BETWEEN:

RATNA GHOSH

Applicant
AND:

SCOTT NEWTON

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MAY 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Paragraph 7 of the interlocutory application filed by the applicant and dated 6 May 2024 is dismissed.

2.The applicant be referred to the pro bono solicitor panel pursuant to r 4.12(1) of the Federal Court Rules.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript

JACKMAN J:

  1. In this matter, the applicant filed an interlocutory application yesterday seeking a range of orders. Orders 7 and 9 are sought today.

  2. Order 7 reads as follows:

    Pursuant to r 14.01(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules, An order that the Applicant may enter the property at 49 Patricia Ave, Charlestown, New South Wales 2290 multiple times to check what contents have been removed.

  3. I am informed by the solicitor for the respondent that this order is substantially identical to order 6 which was sought in an interlocutory application dismissed by Kennett J on 22 April 2024. The applicant has not relied on any evidence filed since 22 April 2024, and there is no evidence before me of any change in circumstances since that date. Accordingly, I dismiss the application for an order of the nature sought in paragraph 7 of the interlocutory application dated 6 May 2024.

  4. Order 9 seeks a certificate referring the applicant to the pro bono solicitor panel pursuant to r 4.12(1) of the Federal Court Rules. That order is not opposed. I am prepared to grant the certificate, which will be issued to the respondent as soon as practicable.

  5. The applicant does not at this stage move on the balance of the interlocutory application, which I will stand over to the final hearing of the matter on 1 August 2024. I note that under the orders which I have already made today, each party has liberty to apply on three days’ written notice. I reserve the question of costs of today’s interlocutory application to the final hearing of the matter.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman.

Associate:

Dated:       16 May 2024

Details
AGLC
Ghosh v Newton [2024] FCA 517
Case
[2024] FCA 517
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ghosh v Newton involves the applicant, Mr Ghosh, seeking permission to enter property as part of a bankruptcy and insolvency dispute. The respondent, Mr Newton, opposes the application. This application was brought before the Federal Court, which has jurisdiction over bankruptcy and insolvency matters in Australia. Mr Ghosh, who had previously been denied a similar application, sought to re-litigate the issue without providing any new evidence or circumstances that would warrant reconsideration.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted leave to enter the property, given that the court had already dismissed a substantially identical application. The court also had to determine whether there were any changes in circumstances that would justify a different outcome. The court needed to balance the rights of the applicant to access property relevant to the bankruptcy proceedings against the respondent's rights to privacy and property security.

In dismissing the application, the court found that there was no new evidence or changed circumstances that would warrant a different result. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a valid reason for the court to revisit its earlier decision. Furthermore, the court noted that the application appeared to be an attempt to relitigate the same issue without justification. The court exercised its discretion to refer the applicant to the pro bono solicitor panel, under rule 4.12(1) of the Federal Court Rules, to assist with the applicant’s legal representation.

The court’s orders were straightforward: it dismissed the application and referred the applicant to the pro bono solicitor panel. This decision highlights the importance of demonstrating changed circumstances or new evidence when seeking to revisit a court's previous decision in similar proceedings. The final orders reflect the court's approach to interlocutory applications in bankruptcy and insolvency matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Paragraph 7 of the interlocutory application filed by the applicant and dated 6 May 2024 is dismissed.

2. The applicant be referred to the pro bono solicitor panel pursuant to r 4.12(1) of the Federal Court Rules.

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.