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 900File 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 900Date 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:
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] FCA 949
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.