IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 705 of 1997
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
ROBERT (JUNIOR) HUDSON
APPELLANTAND:
THOMAS JAMES DONALD AND ANOTHER
RESPONDENTS
JUDGE(S):
BRANSON, TAMBERLIN & KIEFEL JJ
DATE:
11 MARCH 1998
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)
BRANSON J: This is an appeal from a decision of Lindgren J given on 12 August 1997, dismissing an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice. The amended notice of appeal contains three grounds. For myself I am satisfied that there is no substance in any of those grounds. That is, that no error in the reasons for judgment of Lindgren J has been identified.
For completeness I add that the appellant sought today to place before the Court a further amended notice of appeal. Such further amended notice of appeal sought to raise issues not relevant to the appeal before the Court. The Court refused the appellant leave to further amend his notice of appeal.
In addition, the appellant raised with the Court the question of whether or not the judgment of the magistrate which supported the bankruptcy notice was a judgment that this Court ought to go behind. As to that, it was an issue considered by Lindgren J, as his reasons for judgment show. His Honour addressed the question and determined in the exercise of his discretion not to go behind the judgment. I am not satisfied that any error has been shown in the approach of Lindgren J to that question.
In my view, the appeal should be dismissed.
TAMBERLIN J: Yes, I agree with the reasons and the orders proposed by the presiding judge.
KIEFEL J: I also agree and have nothing to add.
BRANSON J: The order of the Court is that the appeal be dismissed.
I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.
Associate:
Dated:
The Appellant appeared in person. Counsel for the Respondents: R. Quickenden Solicitor for the Respondents: Tonkin Drysdale Partners Date of Hearing: 11 March 1998 Date of Judgment: 11 March 1998
- AGLC
- Hudson, Robert (Junior) v Donald, Thomas James [1998] FCA 227
- Case
- [1998] FCA 227
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the reasons provided by Lindgren J, who had previously dismissed the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice. The appeal grounds were that there was an error in Lindgren J's reasons for judgment, but the court found no substance in these grounds. Additionally, the court considered whether it should examine the magistrate's judgment, a question already addressed by Lindgren J. The judges determined that Lindgren J's discretion not to go behind the judgment was correct. Consequently, the court was satisfied that there was no error in the approach taken by Lindgren J. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
Branson J certified the accuracy of the reasons for judgment and noted that Hudson appeared in person, while the respondents were represented by counsel and solicitors. The appeal was dismissed on the same day it was heard, which was 11 March 1998. The court's final order was that the appeal be dismissed, with Branson, Tamberlin, and Kiefel JJ concurring in the decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.