Lawrence v Sammut (No 3) - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1214

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Lawrence v Sammut (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1214

File number(s): SYG 346 of 2021

Judgment of: JUDGE MCCABE

Date of judgment: 1 August 2025

Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – application for summary dismissal of application to review Certificate of Taxation issued by registrar – whether the Court can review issue of Certificate of Taxation – whether the application for review of Certificate of Taxation was filed correctly – whether the application for review of Certificate of Taxation has reasonable prospects of success – whether leave to amend the application for review should be granted – application for review not compliant with Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.34(2) – application to review Certificate of Taxation summarily dismissed.

Legislation:
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 40(1)(g)

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 190, 191, 254, 256

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Bankruptcy) Rules 2021 (Cth) div 13.01

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.13

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.34

Cases cited:
Australian Coal & Shale Employees Federation vTheCommonwealth [1953] HCA 25; (1953) 94 CLR 621

Cassimatis v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] FCA 131; (2016) 334 ALR 350

Clark, Tait & Company v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1931] HCA 26; (1931) 47 CLR 142

Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCA 720

Lawrence v Ciantar [2019] NSWSC 464

Lawrence v Sammut [2021] FCCA 1929

Schweppes Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 33

Date of hearing: 10 July 2025

Place: Sydney

Applicant: The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the respondents: Mr A Spencer

Solicitor for the respondents: McLean & Associates Solicitors
ORDERS

SYG 346 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
WAYNE JAMES LAWRENCE

Applicant

AND:
ALICE ALEXANDRIA SAMMUT

First Respondent

PAUL WILLIAM CIANTAR

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE MCCABE

DATE OF ORDER:

1 AUGUST 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application dated 8 November 2024 for review of a registrar’s decision is dismissed pursuant to r 13.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE MCCABE:

These proceedings were originally commenced in 2021 following the issue of a bankruptcy notice against Mr Lawrence, the applicant. The reasons which follow relate to an interlocutory application made by Ms Sammut and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lawrence v Sammut (No 3) 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1214
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lawrence v Sammut (No 3), the Federal Court of Australia was asked to determine whether it could review a Certificate of Taxation issued by the registrar in bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant, Mr Lawrence, sought to review the Certificate of Taxation, but his application did not comply with the relevant rules of the Federal Court. The respondents, represented by Sammut, argued that Mr Lawrence's application for review was defective and should be summarily dismissed.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Court had the jurisdiction to review the Certificate of Taxation, whether the application for review was correctly filed, and whether the application had reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, the court considered whether leave to amend the application for review should be granted, as Mr Lawrence had not applied for such leave. The respondents contended that the application was not compliant with Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rule 40.34(2), and therefore, it should be dismissed.

The court found that the application for review of the Certificate of Taxation was not compliant with the Federal Court Rules. The court noted that Mr Lawrence did not seek leave to amend the application, nor did he respond to the respondents' arguments against granting such leave. The court emphasised that the burden of making an application and explaining why it is appropriate to exercise the discretion lies with the applicant. Given the absence of an application to amend and the lack of detail in Mr Lawrence's application, the court was satisfied that the application had little prospect of success as drafted. Consequently, the court concluded that the respondents should succeed in their application for summary dismissal of Mr Lawrence's application for review of the Certificate of Taxation.

The court ordered that the application for review of the Certificate of Taxation be summarily dismissed. The court found that Mr Lawrence had no reasonable prospect of prosecuting the proceeding due to the absence of required detail in his application and the narrow scope of the review contemplated under rule 40.34(2) of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Mr Lawrence did not ask for leave to amend the application and he did not respond to any of the respondents’ arguments against giving leave if it were sought. The burden of making such an application and explaining why it is appropriate to exercise the discretion lies on the applicant seeking those orders: see Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCA 720 at [25] per Katzmann J. In the absence of an application to amend, I do not need to express a concluded view on whether it would be appropriate to make such an order. I need only respond to the application I have before me - and I am satisfied that application has little prospect of success as drafted. CONCLUSION The respondents should succeed in their application for summary dismissal pursuant of Mr Lawrence's application for review of the registrar's Certificate of Taxation. I am satisfied Mr Lawrence has no reasonable prospect of prosecuting the proceeding given the absence of required detail in his application and the comparatively narrow scope of the review contemplated under r 40.34(2) of the FCR.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYG 346 of 2021
Judgment of:	JUDGE MCCABE
Date of judgment:	1 August 2025
Catchwords:	BANKRUPTCY – application for summary dismissal of application to review Certificate of Taxation issued by registrar – whether the Court can review issue of Certificate of Taxation – whether the application for review of Certificate of Taxation was filed correctly – whether the application for review of Certificate of Taxation has reasonable prospects of success – whether leave to amend the application for review should be granted – application for review not compliant with Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.34(2) – application to review Certificate of Taxation summarily dismissed.
Legislation:	Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 40(1)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 190, 191, 254, 256 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Bankruptcy) Rules 2021 (Cth) div 13.01 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 13.13 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.34
Cases cited:	Australian Coal & Shale Employees Federation vTheCommonwealth [1953] HCA 25; (1953) 94 CLR 621 Cassimatis v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] FCA 131; (2016) 334 ALR 350 Clark, Tait & Company v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1931] HCA 26; (1931) 47 CLR 142 Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited [2010] FCA 720 Lawrence v Ciantar [2019] NSWSC 464 Lawrence v Sammut [2021] FCCA 1929 Schweppes Ltd v Archer (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 178
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	33
Date of hearing:	10 July 2025
Place:	Sydney
Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the respondents:	Mr A Spencer
Solicitor for the respondents:	McLean & Associates Solicitors

SYG 346 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	WAYNE JAMES LAWRENCE Applicant
AND:	ALICE ALEXANDRIA SAMMUT First Respondent PAUL WILLIAM CIANTAR Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE MCCABE
DATE OF ORDER:	1 AUGUST 2025