Low v The Owners Strata Plan No. 35790

Link copied
Case Copied 8 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Low v The Owners Strata Plan No. 35790 [2016] FCA 949

Appeal from: Low v The Owners Strata Plan No. 35790
[2016] FCCA 900
File number(s): NSD 710 of 2016
Judge(s): BURLEY J
Date of judgment: 9 August 2016
Catchwords:

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia refusing application to review sequestration order

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application – application to dismiss appeal for failing to prosecute the appeal pursuant to r 36.74 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – consideration of prospects of success of the appeal

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 52, 153B

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 104

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 36.74

Cases cited: Low v The Owners Strata Plan No. 35790
[2016] FCCA 900
Date of hearing: 9 August 2016
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 25
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant did not appear
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr F Shafiq of J S Mueller & Co Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 710 of 2016
BETWEEN:

LAN HEONG LOW

Appellant

AND:

THE OWNERS STRATA PLAN NO 35790-

Respondent

JUDGE:

BURLEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 AUGUST 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.That the appeal be dismissed.

2.That the respondent’s costs be paid out of the proceeds of the bankrupt estate.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)

BURLEY J:

  1. In this proceeding, the respondent has filed an interlocutory application pursuant to rule 36.74 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) for the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal on the basis that the appellant has failed to prosecute the appeal.  The proceedings were commenced by notice of appeal from a decision of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCA) filed on 13 May 2016.  In it, the appellant appealed from a judgment given on 22 April 2016; Low v The Owners Strata Plan No. 35790 [2016] FCCA 900 (Judgment), pursuant to which an application to review a sequestration order made by a registrar of the FCCA against the estate of the appellant was refused. The review was conducted pursuant to subsection 104(3) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) as a hearing de novo.

  2. The grounds of appeal relied upon in the present appeal and orders sought are as follows:

    Grounds of appeal

    1.        Procedural mistakes e.g. attend required court hearing dated 22 April 2016. 

    2.Failures to consider factors such as intention of the Managing Agent/Prop of SP35790, willingness to pay versus inability to pay, state law requirements etc.

    3.Factors permitting annulment e.g. impact on my accessibility to employment, restrictions on travel, etc.

    Orders sought

    1.Annulment of the Order…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Low v The Owners Strata Plan No. 35790 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
[2016] FCA 949
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Low v The Owners Strata Plan No. 35790 involved an appeal by the bankrupt against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which had refused an application to review a sequestration order. The Federal Circuit Court had determined that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it, leading to the bankrupt's appeal to the Federal Court. The central issue was whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in dismissing the bankrupt's application to review the sequestration order.

The court had to decide if the Federal Circuit Court's decision to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was correct. The bankrupt argued that the Federal Circuit Court failed to consider the merits of the appeal, instead focusing on procedural grounds. The court needed to evaluate the merits of the appeal, particularly if there were reasonable prospects of success, and whether the Federal Circuit Court's decision to dismiss the appeal was justified.

The Federal Court held that the Federal Circuit Court's decision to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was correct. The bankrupt had failed to prosecute the appeal diligently, and there were no reasonable prospects of success on the merits. The Federal Court found that the bankrupt's arguments did not provide a sound basis to review the sequestration order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the bankrupt's costs were ordered to be paid out of the proceeds of the bankrupt estate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the appeal be dismissed.

2. That the respondent’s costs be paid out of the proceeds of the bankrupt estate.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.