FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hubner v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2000] FCA 140
BANKRUPTCY - appeal against sequestration orders - entitlement of judge to make sequestration orders without a jury - the Court’s discretion under s 30(3) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) - Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - whether or not a jury should be present to satisfy natural justice
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 30(3)
Bankruptcy Act 1924 (Cth) s 25(2)
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Sch 2
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
State and Territorial Laws and Records Recognition Act 1901 (Cth) s 19
Federal Court Rules O 29 r 2(a)
Insolvency Act 1874 (Qld) s 23
Bankruptcy Act 1898 (NSW) s 134
Acts Repeal Act 1991 (Qld) s 2(1) and Sch 1Hubner v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1999) 88 FCR 445; [1999] FCA 385 cited
Re Coward; Stapleton v Brady [1952] QWN 15 (FCB) cited
Re Allen (1905) 5 SR(NSW) 55 cited
Taylor v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1999) ATC 4,268 followed
Minogue v Williams [2000] FCA 125 (Ryan, Merkel and Goldberg JJ; unreported, 17 February 2000) referred to
Commissioner of StampDuties (NSW) v Owens [No 2] (1953) 88 CLR 168 referred toCOLIN RICHARD HUBNER AND YVONNE HUBNER v AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED
Q 245 OF 1999DRUMMOND, DOWSETT AND KATZ JJ
25 FEBRUARY 2000
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 245 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
COLIN RICHARD HUBNER AND YVONNE HUBNER
APPELLANTSAND:
AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
DRUMMOND, DOWSETT AND KATZ JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
25 FEBRUARY 2000
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 245 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
COLIN RICHARD HUBNER AND YVONNE HUBNER
APPELLANTSAND:
AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
DRUMMOND, DOWSETT AND KATZ JJ
DATE:
25 FEBRUARY 2000
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
This is an appeal from the making, by a single Judge of this Court, of sequestration orders against the estates of the appellants.
The notice of appeal (which was in the form appropriate to so-called appeals from certain administrative tribunals, rather than in the form appropriate to true appeals from judgments of single Judges of this Court) stated five grounds of appeal. The last of those grounds was the foundation for the seeking of a particular order on the appeal. At the outset of the appeal, the appellants announced that they were no longer seeking the making of the order of which the last ground of appeal was the foundation. Later, the respondent sought that…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hubner v ANZ Banking Group Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2000] FCA 140
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in the case were whether the dismissal of Hubner was indeed unfair and whether there were any breaches of contract or employment laws by the bank. The court had to determine if the dismissal complied with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the bank had acted in accordance with procedural fairness. Additionally, the court examined whether there were valid reasons for the dismissal and if the bank had followed appropriate procedures in reaching its decision.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that ANZ Banking Group Ltd had followed proper procedures and that there were valid reasons for Hubner's dismissal. The court concluded that the dismissal was not unfair and that there was no breach of contract or procedural fairness. The evidence presented did not support Hubner's claims of unfair treatment or procedural flaws in the dismissal process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against Hubner.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs. This decision confirmed that the bank had acted lawfully and reasonably in terminating Hubner's employment, and there was no basis for awarding damages or other relief to the former employee.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
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: DRUMMOND, DOWSETT AND KATZ JJ
Full text does not contain this section.