Re Hedrlin, J. v Ex parte Donnelly, M.C

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
)

DIVISION

GENERAL

1 1

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE

1	No. G366 of 1987

OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL

ERRITORY

)

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A SINGLE

J U D G E

RE :

JOSEPH

H DRLIN

EX PARTE: M.C. DONNELLY

Respondent

JUDGES MAKING ORDER:	Beaumont, 'Gummow and Einfeld JJ.
DATE OF ORDER:	29 October 1987

EX TEMPORE

REASONS

FOR

JUDGMENT

AND ORDER

BEAUMONT J.	The Court is of	the opinlon that leave to	I .
> .

appeal agalnst order

1 made by Wllcox J. on 14 July should

be refused.

We would add that nothing has been put to

which would suggest that Wllcox J. erred in any respect In

making this order.	The Court 1 s also of the oplnion that	.	I
!	. .

applzcatlon for leave to appeal against order

NO. 2 made by

- .

Wilcox J. on 14 July should be dlsmissed.

The Court is further

Wilcox J. on 14 July 1987 should be refused. Again, nothlng

has been put to us which would suggest that Wllcox J. was In

error In any respect In thls matter also.

of the view that leave to appeal agalnst order No. 3 made by trustee's costs of to-day's appllcatlons thus far dealt wlth.

I certlfy that thls page IS a

true copy of the Reasons for

Judgment

the Court.

Dated:

Q F - / / - 8 7

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia, in the case of Re Hedrlin, J. v Ex parte Donnelly, M.C., was asked to review orders made by Wilcox J. on 14 July, regarding the bankruptcy of Joseph Hedrlin. The appellant, M.C. Donnelly, sought leave to appeal against three separate orders made by Wilcox J. in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings.

The legal issues before the court were whether leave to appeal against the orders made by Wilcox J. should be granted or refused. Specifically, the court had to consider whether there were grounds to suggest that Wilcox J. had erred in making these orders.

The court, comprising Beaumont, Gummow, and Einfeld JJ., found that no errors had been demonstrated in the orders made by Wilcox J. The court ruled that the application for leave to appeal against the first order should be refused, and that the application for leave to appeal against the second order should be dismissed. Regarding the third order, the court also decided that leave to appeal should be refused. The court did not find any evidence suggesting that Wilcox J. had made any errors in these orders.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeals against the orders made by Wilcox J. on 14 July were dismissed, and no leave to appeal was granted. The costs of the application were to be borne by the appellant, M.C. Donnelly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established