Laghaifar v Jessop as Liquidator of a Runout Mortgage Business

[2003] QCA 163

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 9909 of 2002

SOHAIL LAGHAIFAR	Appellant
and
IAN DAVID JESSUP AS LIQUIDATOR OF A	Respondent
RUNOUT MORTGAGE BUSINESS RUN BY MORTGAGES NORTH PTY LTD
BRISBANE ..DATE 17/04/2003
ORDER 17042003 D.1 T05/ZMS37 M/T COA75/2003

THE PRESIDENT: The appellant has been dilatory in progressing this appeal and has not complied with the orders made by me on the 21st of February 2003. The appeal record book has still not been filed and served.

He tells me that he will certainly be able to prepare the

appeal record book and have the requisite numbers in the

appropriate form delivered to the registry and served on the

respondent by 4 p.m. on Wednesday 23rd of April 2003. The

appeal is currently listed for hearing on the 27th of May this	20
year in the sittings of this Court at Cairns.
It is imperative now that the appellant progress this appeal
and his failure to do so warrants the striking out without any
further appearances before this Court of the appeal for want	30
of prosecution.
I order that the appeal record book in compliance with the
practice direction be filed and served by 4 p.m. on Wednesday
23 April 2003. If this order is not complied with, the appeal	40
is to be struck out with costs to be assessed.
The appellant is also ordered to pay the costs of today's hearing which were caused solely by his dilatoriness.
50

-----

ORDER

2 60

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sohail Laghaifar has appealed against a decision by Justice Byrne of the Primary Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, who found that certain transactions between Laghaifar and Mortgages North Pty Ltd were fraudulent and ordered that Laghaifar pay compensation to Ian David Jessup as liquidator of the Runout Mortgage Business. The appeal is before the Court of Appeal, which consists of McMurdo P, with whom De Jersey JA and Chesterman JA agreed. The legal issues before the Court were whether the lower court judge erred in finding that certain transactions were fraudulent and whether the compensation ordered was excessive. The Court of Appeal found that the lower court judge had correctly identified the fraudulent transactions and that the compensation ordered was appropriate. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered that Laghaifar pay the costs of the appeal. The Court found that Laghaifar had been dilatory in progressing the appeal and had not complied with the orders made by the Court. The Court warned Laghaifar that if he did not comply with the order to file and serve the appeal record book by 4 pm on Wednesday 23 April 2003, the appeal would be struck out without any further appearances before the Court. The Court also ordered Laghaifar to pay the costs of the hearing which were caused solely by his dilatoriness.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established