FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 4) [2024] FCA 163
File number: NSD 767 of 2021 Judgment of: COLVIN J Date of judgment: 28 February 2024 Date of publication of reasons: 29 February 2024 Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 35A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 3.11, 40.21
Cases cited: Caratti v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2021] FCA 1067
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter [2022] FCA 336
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 2) [2022] FCA 901
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 3) [2022] FCA 998
Moroccanoil Israel Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 1393
Porter, in the matter of Slater (No 3) [2021] FCA 688
Robson as former trustee of the estate of Samsakopoulos v Body Corporate for Sanderling at Kings Beach CTS 2942 [2021] FCAFC 143; (2021) 286 FCR 494
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 37 Date of hearing: 28 February 2024 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Neggo Counsel for the Respondents: Ms N Bailey Solicitor for the Respondents: Mills Oakley Lawyers ORDERS
NSD 767 of 2021 BETWEEN: MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LTD
Applicant
AND: JASON LLOYD PORTER
First Respondent
RICHARD MORETTI
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 FEBRUARY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The interlocutory application dated 3 April 2023 for an extension of time in which to apply to review the order of Registrar Segal of 27 January 2023 is dismissed.
2.The applicant do pay the costs of the first and second respondents of and incidental to the interlocutory application.
3.The costs pursuant to order 2 be quantified on a lump sum basis by a registrar acting as a referee after receiving written submission of no more than three pages and any affidavit from each of the parties in accordance with a timetable to be set by the registrar.
4.Subject to further order, the question whether the registrar's report as referee should be adopted will be considered by the case managing judge on the papers that were before the registrar acting as referee without the filing of any additional papers.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COLVIN J:
By orders of this Court made in 2016, Mr Jason Lloyd Porter and Mr Richard Moretti were appointed to administer or realise all or part of the assets of Mr David Ross Slater located in Australia. They were appointed as local representatives of Ms Julie Palmer, the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Mr Slater pursuant to proceedings in the United Kingdom.
Mr Porter and Mr Moretti realised the Australian assets of Mr Slater. In 2021, they then sought and obtained orders as to the costs, charges and expenses of the administration of their appointment. Those orders included…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter (No 4) 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
- [2024] FCA 163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the applicant's reasons for seeking an extension of time were sufficient to warrant relief. The legal issues included whether the applicant had acted with due diligence and if there were exceptional circumstances justifying the late application. The court also needed to consider the impact of any delay on the respondents and the broader administration of justice. The court found that the applicant had not provided adequate justification for the delay and that the extension of time would not be granted.
In dismissing the application, the court emphasised the need for promptness in legal proceedings and highlighted the importance of adhering to set timelines. The court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents, reflecting the lack of merit in the application. The costs were to be quantified by a registrar acting as a referee, with strict limits on the submissions allowed. The case managing judge would then decide whether to adopt the referee's report without additional filings. This approach aimed to efficiently resolve the financial implications of the unsuccessful application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The interlocutory application dated 3 April 2023 for an extension of time in which to apply to review the order of Registrar Segal of 27 January 2023 is dismissed.
2. The applicant do pay the costs of the first and second respondents of and incidental to the interlocutory application.
3. The costs pursuant to order 2 be quantified on a lump sum basis by a registrar acting as a referee after receiving written submission of no more than three pages and any affidavit from each of the parties in accordance with a timetable to be set by the registrar.
4. Subject to further order, the question whether the registrar's report as referee should be adopted will be considered by the case managing judge on the papers that were before the registrar acting as referee without the filing of any additional papers.
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.