FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Kovacic v A&S Powersellers Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1406
Appeal from: A&S Powerseller Pty Ltd v Kovacic [2020] FCA 459 File number: VID 305 of 2020 Judgment of: O'BRYAN J Date of judgment: 30 September 2020 Catchwords: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – whether corporate respondent should be granted to leave to be represented by its general manager – relevant considerations – whether proceedings under sequestration order should be stayed pending determination of appeal Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 37(2), 43(2), 58(1), 153B(1)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 27, 28, 37M
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 1.34, 4.01
Cases cited: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (Receivers Appointed) (1985) 2 NSWLR 685
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1996] HCA 3; (1996) 134 ALR 460
Checked-Out Pty Ltd v Eagle Eye Inspections Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1002
De Robillard v Carver (2007) 159 FCR 38
Pattison v Hadjimouratis (2006) 155 FCR 226
Pharm-a-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 12) [2012] FCA 289
Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation (1996) 67 FCR 65
Re Molnar Engineering Pty Ltd v Burns (1984) 3 FCR 68
Simon v Vincent J O’Gorman Pty Ltd [1979] FCA 75; (1979) 27 ALR 619
Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 36 Date of last submissions: 28 August 2020 Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant was self-represented Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent was represented by Mr K Lau of A&S Powersellers Pty Ltd ORDERS
VID 305 of 2020 BETWEEN: ZORAN KOVACIC
Appellant
AND: A&S POWERSELLERS PTY LTD
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
O'BRYAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 SEPTEMBER 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Subject to further order, the respondent be given leave to be represented in the proceeding by its General Manager, Mr Kan How Lau.
2.Subject to paragraph 3, proceedings under the sequestration orders made by Registrar Ryan on 6 February 2020 be stayed pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
3.The order in paragraph 2 will take effect 14 days after the appellant has served a copy of the order on his Trustee in Bankruptcy by prepaid post.
4.The appellant’s Trustee in Bankruptcy has liberty to apply to vary or set aside paragraph 2 of these orders.
5.There be no orders as to the costs of the appellant’s interlocutory application dated 28 August 2020 or the respondent’s interlocutory application dated 21 August 2020.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O’BRYAN J:
Introduction
This proceeding is an appeal against a decision of Justice Kerr of this Court dismissing an application for review of an order of Registrar Ryan of this Court made on…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kovacic v A&S Powersellers Pty 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
- [2020] FCA 1406
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the corporate respondent should be granted leave to be represented by its general manager, considering the relevant factors, and whether the proceedings under the sequestration order should be stayed pending the determination of the appeal. The court needed to balance the interests of the parties and the procedural fairness in granting leave for representation and in deciding on the stay of proceedings.
The court granted leave for the respondent to be represented by its general manager, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that the general manager's representation was appropriate due to his knowledge of the case and the complexity of the issues involved. Regarding the stay of proceedings, the court decided that the proceedings should be stayed pending the determination of the appeal, but it stipulated that the stay would only take effect after the appellant had notified his Trustee in Bankruptcy. The court also provided the Trustee with the liberty to apply to vary or set aside the stay if necessary. Finally, the court ordered that there be no orders as to the costs of the interlocutory applications, as neither party effectively opposed the other's application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Subject to further order, the respondent be given leave to be represented in the proceeding by its General Manager, Mr Kan How Lau.
2. Subject to paragraph 3, proceedings under the sequestration orders made by Registrar Ryan on 6 February 2020 be stayed pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
3. The order in paragraph 2 will take effect 14 days after the appellant has served a copy of the order on his Trustee in Bankruptcy by prepaid post.
4. The appellant’s Trustee in Bankruptcy has liberty to apply to vary or set aside paragraph 2 of these orders.
5. There be no orders as to the costs of the appellant’s interlocutory application dated 28 August 2020 or the respondent’s interlocutory application dated 21 August 2020.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.