Mbuzi v Favell

Case [2011] FCA 1439


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mbuzi v Favell [2011] FCA 1439

Citation: Mbuzi v Favell [2011] FCA 1439
Parties: JOSIYAS MBUZI v PAUL JOSEPH FAVELL
File number(s): QUD 315 of 2011
Judge: GREENWOOD J
Date of judgment: 14 December 2011
Catchwords:

BANKRUPTCY – consideration of an application for a stay of a Sequestration Order pending an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration of an application for stay of a Sequestration Order pending an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 52(3)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 29
Federal Court Rules 2011, Rule 36.08; Rule 36.10
Cases cited: Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 - cited
Skalkos v T and S Recoveries Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 321 – cited
Freeman v National Australia Bank Limited [2002] FCA 427 - cited
Rigg v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2001] FCA 1340 - cited
Greyson v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2005] FCA 1108 – cited
Date of hearing: 30 November 2011
Date of last submissions: 30 November 2011
Place: Brisbane
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 41
Counsel for the Appellant: Appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P Hackett
Solicitor for the Trustees of the Estate of Josiyas Mbuzi: Mr S Muller, Rodgers Barnes & Green

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 315 of 2011

BETWEEN:

JOSIYAS MBUZI
Appellant

AND:

PAUL JOSEPH FAVELL
Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 DECEMBER 2011

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application of the appellant for an order staying, pending the hearing and determination of an appeal to this Court of a Sequestration Order made by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 5 September 2011 is dismissed. 

2.The appellant shall pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the application. 

3.The costs of the trustees of the estate of the appellant shall be costs in the administration of the estate of the appellant.   

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 315 of 2011

BETWEEN:

JOSIYAS MBUZI
Appellant

AND:

PAUL JOSEPH FAVELL
Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE:

14 DECEMBER 2011

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. By this application, the appellant, Mr Josiyas Mbuzi, seeks a stay (under s 52(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth); s 29 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; and Rule 36.08 of the Federal Court Rules 2011) of a Sequestration Order made by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia before Federal Magistrate Jarrett on 5 September 2011, pending an appeal from that order to this Court. The appeal is set down to be heard in February 2012.

  2. The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 26 September 2011 in which the appellant recites as one of the orders sought in the appeal, an order in these terms:…

Continue reading Mbuzi v Favell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mbuzi v Favell [2011] FCA 1439
Case
[2011] FCA 1439
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mbuzi v Favell involves the appellant, Mbuzi, who is seeking to appeal a Sequestration Order made by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 5 September 2011. The respondent, Favell, is the liquidator of Mbuzi's estate. Mbuzi applied for a stay of the Sequestration Order pending the appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute at hand is whether the appellant's application for a stay should be granted, allowing him to continue to manage his estate during the appeal process, or whether the order should remain in effect.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the appellant met the criteria for a stay of the Sequestration Order as outlined in section 97A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. This section stipulates that the court may grant a stay if it is satisfied that the applicant has a serious question to be tried and that the applicant has furnished sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court. The court had to consider whether Mbuzi had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and whether the security provided was adequate.

The court found that Mbuzi had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried. The arguments presented by Mbuzi did not sufficiently challenge the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court to grant the Sequestration Order. Furthermore, the court was not satisfied that the security provided by Mbuzi was sufficient. Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed. The court ordered that Mbuzi would be responsible for the costs of the respondent and that the costs of the trustees of Mbuzi's estate would be treated as costs in the administration of the estate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application of the appellant for an order staying, pending the hearing and determination of an appeal to this Court of a Sequestration Order made by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia on 5 September 2011 is dismissed.

2. The appellant shall pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the application.

3. The costs of the trustees of the estate of the appellant shall be costs in the administration of the estate of the appellant.

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.