FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
May v Vero Insurance Limited [2013] FCA 1388
Citation: May v Vero Insurance Limited [2013] FCA 1388 Parties: STEPHEN MAY v VERO INSURANCE LIMITED File number: NSD 2093 of 2013 Judge: FOSTER J Date of judgment: 12 December 2013 Date of hearing: 12 December 2013 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Cases cited: May v Vero Insurance Limited [2012] FCA 727 cited Number of paragraphs: 18 Solicitor for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person. Solicitor/Advocate for the Respondent: Ms H Rayfield Solicitors for the Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 2093 of 2013
BETWEEN: STEPHEN MAY
ApplicantAND: VERO INSURANCE LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGE:
FOSTER J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 DECEMBER 2013
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application for Review of the decision of Registrar Hannigan made on 30 October 2013 (including the Interim Application filed by the applicant on 18 November 2013) be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to that Application.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 2093 of 2013
BETWEEN: STEPHEN MAY
ApplicantAND: VERO INSURANCE LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGE:
FOSTER J
DATE:
12 DECEMBER 2013
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 11 October 2013 the applicant made an application in this Court for an order setting aside Bankruptcy Notice BN163541 issued on 28 August 2013 against him. In addition he sought a stay of his Originating Application in this Court until the determination of certain proceedings in the District Court of New South Wales between the respondent and him (Action No 394410 of 2011) (the District Court proceedings). In the District Court proceedings, the applicant in this Court is the defendant/cross-claimant and the respondent in this Court is the plaintiff/cross-defendant. I think that the applicant probably also wanted to restrain action under the Bankruptcy Notice, although this was not a claim which was clearly articulated in his Originating Application.
The judgment debt which is the foundation of the Bankruptcy Notice is for an amount of $78,173. That amount comprises the taxed amount of costs ordered against the applicant on 9 July 2012 by a judge of this Court in proceeding No NSD 360 of 2012 (May v Vero Insurance Limited [2012] FCA 727) (the earlier proceeding) plus interest and other costs.
In the earlier proceeding, the applicant sought an order removing the District Court proceedings into this Court and other substantive relief. On 9 July 2012, the judge struck out the whole of the applicant’s Originating Application in the earlier proceeding and made an order for costs against the applicant in favour of the respondent.
In the District Court proceedings, the applicant in this Court has filed a Cross-Claim which has not yet been determined. That Cross-Claim was not supported in this…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read May v Vero Insurance Limited 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
- [2013] FCA 1388
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court had to address were whether the decision of the Registrar was correct and whether the interim application filed by the applicant should be granted. The applicant argued that the Registrar had erred in his decision and that the interim application should be allowed due to the urgency of the matter. The respondent, Vero Insurance Limited, contended that the decision was correct and that the interim application should be dismissed.
The court found that the decision of the Registrar was sound and that there was no basis to grant the interim application. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Registrar had made an error in his decision, and that the urgency of the matter did not warrant the granting of the interim application. The court also noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims. As a result, the application for review and the interim application were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.
The court’s final orders were that the application for review of the decision of Registrar Hannigan made on 30 October 2013 (including the Interim Application filed by the applicant on 18 November 2013) be dismissed, and that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to that Application. These orders were made in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Application for Review of the decision of Registrar Hannigan made on 30 October 2013 (including the Interim Application filed by the applicant on 18 November 2013) be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to that Application.
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.