Lamb (Trustee), in the matter of Ariss (Bankrupt) v Ariss

In the case of Lamb (Trustee), in the matter of Ariss (Bankrupt) v Ariss, the applicant, acting as the trustee in bankruptcy of Maria Olga Ariss, sought leave to appeal and a stay of certain orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court (FMCA) against her former husband, Stephen Gordon Ariss, and a company he directs. The applicant had previously sought an injunction in the FMCA, which was granted ex parte. However, the applicant's application in the FMCA was silent on final orders sought and only specified a mandatory injunction as an interim order. The case before the court involved three primary issues: whether leave to appeal was required, if leave was required, whether it should be granted, and if no leave was required or if leave was granted, whether the applicant was entitled to a stay.

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was flawed because it was based on inadequate and misleading affidavit evidence. The court highlighted the importance of uberrima fides in ex parte applications, stating that the applicant had not discharged its duty to provide all material facts. The court also considered whether the applicant should be allowed to amend the FMCA application to seek substantive relief, but concluded that it would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice to permit such an amendment. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the stay of certain of the Magistrate’s orders was discharged.

In conclusion, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the order extending the stay of certain of the Magistrate’s orders was discharged. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondents' costs.