Jafari v 23 Developments Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FCA 651


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jafari v 23 Developments Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 651  

Appeal from: Jafari v 23 Developments Pty Ltd [2020] FCCA 2379
File number: VID 636 of 2020
Judgment of: ANDERSON J
Date of judgment: 2 June 2022
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — continued non-compliance with Court orders — where appellant given repeated opportunities to comply with court orders — default judgment awarded under r 5.23 of Federal Court Rules 2011
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 14
Date of hearing: 2 June 2022
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant was self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms B Evert
Solicitor for the Respondent: SLF Lawyers

 

ORDERS

VID 636 of 2020
BETWEEN:

KOUROSH JAFARI

Appellant

AND:

23 DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

ANDERSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 JUNE 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed with costs.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ANDERSON J:

  1. This proceeding concerned an appeal brought by Mr Kourosh Jafari (Appellant), seeking to challenge the decision of Judge Burchardt in Jafari v 23 Developments Pty Ltd [2020] FCCA 2379. Before Judge Burchardt, Mr Jafari contended that the judgment creditor’s solicitor, Ms Bettina Evert, was not duly authorised to make an affidavit supporting a bankruptcy notice and as a consequence the bankruptcy notice was invalid and ought be set aside. Judge Burchardt rejected this ground of review.

  2. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal on 23 September 2020.  The Appellant sought to relitigate various matters that were initially determined by Justice Elliot in the Supreme Court of Victoria in Jafari v 23 Developments Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 404.

  3. On 7 July 2021 I set the matter down to be heard on 16 March 2022.  On that day I also made the following orders to prepare the matter for appeal:

    4         In accordance with Practice Note APP2:

    (a) by 30 July 2021, the appellant file and serve the appellant’s complete parts A and B of the Appeal Book;

    (b) by 4:00 p.m. on 6 August 2021, the appellant file and serve on the respondent an outline of submissions and chronology of the relevant events;

    (c) by 4:00 p.m. on 27 August 2021, the respondent file and serve on the appellant an outline of submissions, a chronology of the relevant events and a list of materials to be included in part C of the Appeal Book;

    (d) by 4:00 p.m. on 3 September 2021, the appellant file and serve on the respondent any submissions in reply;

    (e) by 4:00 p.m. on 10 September 2021, the appellant file and serve on the respondent part C of the Appeal Book.

    5 The submissions referred to in Order 4 of these Orders are not to exceed 10 pages in length, including any annexures.

    6 By 4:00 p.m. on…

Continue reading Jafari v 23 Developments Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jafari v 23 Developments Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 651
Case
[2022] FCA 651
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jafari was the appellant and 23 Developments Pty Ltd was the respondent in a case before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute involved the non-compliance of the appellant with court orders, leading to a default judgment awarded to the respondent under rule 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The appellant was given multiple opportunities to comply with the court orders, but failed to do so, resulting in the default judgment. The court was required to decide whether the appellant's continued non-compliance justified the award of a default judgment and whether the procedural fairness was upheld by giving the appellant repeated chances to comply.

The court considered whether the appellant's repeated failure to comply with the court orders justified the imposition of a default judgment. The court held that the appellant had been given ample opportunities to rectify the non-compliance and, given the appellant's continued failure to comply, the default judgment was warranted. The court also examined the issue of procedural fairness, acknowledging the appellant's repeated opportunities to comply with the court orders. The court found that the procedural fairness was maintained as the appellant had been given sufficient chances to comply with the orders, and the default judgment was a proportionate response to the appellant's non-compliance.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs. The court held that the default judgment was justified due to the appellant's persistent non-compliance with court orders, and procedural fairness was upheld by providing the appellant with multiple opportunities to comply. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to court orders and the consequences of continued non-compliance. The final orders included the dismissal of the appeal with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

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.