Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Lal v Patel; Patel v Lal Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 110 Hearing Date(s): 20 April 2012 Decision Date: 20 April 2012 Jurisdiction: Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Sackville AJA at [15]Decision: (1) The respondent is directed to file within a period of 4 weeks from today such submissions or evidence as she wishes to rely upon to establish that H Lal & Associates Pty Ltd and the Lal Family Trust were properly notified of the proceedings at first instance or, if they were not, that they do not now wish to be heard in the proceedings.
(2) The appellants are directed to lodge any submissions or evidence in response within 7 days thereafter.
(3) Any reply by the respondent is to be lodged within a further 7 days thereafter.
(4) Direct that the applications for leave to appeal and to strike out the Notice of Appeal be finally determined by the Court on the papers without the need for a further oral hearing.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: APPEAL - application for leave to appeal - no question of principle
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970Cases Cited: Texts Cited: Category: Principal judgment Parties: Patricia Lal (First Applicant)
Hasmukh Lal (Second Applicant)
Jaswanti Patel (Respondent)Representation - Counsel: Counsel:
Applicants in person
M Suliman (Solicitor) (Respondent)- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Applicants in person
M Suliman (Respondent)File number(s): CA 2012/49614; CA 2011/305566
Decision Under Appeal - Court / Tribunal: - Before: Biscoe AJ - Date of Decision: - Citation: Patel v Lal [2011] NSWSC 603; Patel v Lal [2011] NSWSC 678 - Court File Number(s) SC 2009/290378 Publication Restriction:
JUDGMENT
MACFARLAN JA: This is an application to strike out a notice of appeal and an application by the appellants named in that notice of appeal for leave to appeal.
By judgments at first instance dated 22 and 29 June 2011, Acting Justice Biscoe declared that a transfer for nominal consideration of a residential property by H Lal & Associates Pty Limited to the first appellant, Mrs Lal, was voidable under s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) as a transfer made with intent to defraud creditors.
Mrs Lal's husband, the second appellant, was the sole director and shareholder of the company which is now in liquidation. In reaching his conclusions the primary judge rejected Mr and Mrs Lal's argument that the transfer for a nominal consideration was justifiable because the company held the property as trustee for The Lal Property Family Trust and the transfer was simply designed to give…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lal v Patel; Patel v Lal 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
- [2012] NSWCA 110
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant leave to appeal. In this context, the Court was required to consider whether there was a question of principle involved in the appeal. Additionally, the Court had to determine the procedural steps necessary to resolve the applications, particularly in light of the potential non-notification of the aforementioned entities.
The Court's reasoning focused on the procedural aspects of the applications. It was not prepared to finally determine the applications for leave to appeal and to strike out the notice of appeal without first giving the respondent an opportunity to provide submissions or evidence regarding the notification of H Lal & Associates Pty Ltd and the Lal Family Trust, or their election not to be heard. The Court directed a timetable for the filing of such material by both parties, indicating that the applications would then be determined on the papers.
Consequently, the Court made orders directing the respondent to file submissions or evidence concerning the notification of H Lal & Associates Pty Ltd and the Lal Family Trust within four weeks, followed by the appellants' response within seven days, and any reply by the respondent within a further seven days. The Court further directed that the applications for leave to appeal and to strike out the Notice of Appeal be finally determined on the papers without a further oral hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The respondent is directed to file within a period of 4 weeks from today such submissions or evidence as she wishes to rely upon to establish that H Lal & Associates Pty Ltd and the Lal Family Trust were properly notified of the proceedings at first instance or, if they were not, that they do not now wish to be heard in the proceedings.
(2) The appellants are directed to lodge any submissions or evidence in response within 7 days thereafter.
(3) Any reply by the respondent is to be lodged within a further 7 days thereafter.
(4) Direct that the applications for leave to appeal and to strike out the Notice of Appeal be finally determined by the Court on the papers without the need for a further oral hearing.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.