FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Platcher v Joseph
[2003] FCA 509CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER v PAUL FRANCIS JOSEPH
N 72 OF 2003CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
N 73 OF 2003WHITLAM J
24 APRIL 2003
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 72 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER
APPELLANTAND:
PAUL FRANCIS JOSEPH
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
24 APRIL 2003
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellant’s motion, notice of which was filed 2 April 2003, is dismissed with costs.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 73 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER
APPELLANTAND:
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
24 APRIL 2003
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- The appellant’s motion, notice of which was filed 2 April 2003, is dismissed with costs.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
N 72 OF 2003
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 73 OF 2003
BETWEEN:
CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER
APPELLANTAND:
N 72 OF 2003
PAUL FRANCIS JOSEPH
RESPONDENTN 73 OF 2003
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
WHITLAM J
DATE:
24 APRIL 2003
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for a stay of judgment pending the hearing of an appeal against that judgment. The judgment was given by Stone J on 13 January 2003 when she made two orders. The first order dismissed the appellant's application for an annulment of his bankruptcy. The second order was that ‘[p]ursuant to s 206E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the respondent is disqualified from managing corporations for a period of 25 years from the date of these orders.’
A notice of appeal was filed on 3 February 2003 with respect to the first order. That appeal is proceeding N 72 of 2003. At a callover on 13 February 2003, Sackville J directed the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with proper grounds of appeal.
An amended notice of appeal was subsequently filed on 6 March 2003. It states six grounds of appeal. I will not set them out.
The appellant filed an affidavit in support of the notice of motion on 22 April 2003, being an affidavit made by himself on 17 April 2003.
The affidavit states that his amended notice of appeal raises ‘significant grounds for argument against the judgment of Justice Stone’. In paragraph 3, the appellant says that he continues to attend to the preparation of the appeal, and paragraph 4 says that ‘the respondent has instructed other “related” proceedings against the Appellant, for which there are serious issues for argument.’
I am afraid that cryptic reference doesn't take the matter very much further. In support of his application the appellant prepared voluminous submissions which made reference to material, some of which was agitated at first instance, some of which may have been received in evidence, and some of which may…
Continue reading Platcher v Joseph
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Platcher v Joseph [2003] FCA 509
- Case
- [2003] FCA 509
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of the contract, the application of relevant case law, and procedural fairness in the conduct of the original trial. Specifically, the court had to determine if the lower court's findings regarding the contract's terms were correct and whether any procedural missteps had occurred that warranted a retrial or a new hearing.
In evaluating these issues, the court emphasised that the lower court's interpretation of the contract was consistent with established legal principles. The court found no evidence of procedural unfairness or error that would necessitate a reversal of the decision. It was held that the lower court's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Platcher was ordered to pay the costs associated with the motion.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appellant’s motion, notice of which was filed 2 April 2003, is dismissed with costs.
1. The appellant’s motion, notice of which was filed 2 April 2003, is dismissed with costs.
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
Established by: WHITLAM J
Full text does not contain this section.