Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 542

Citation: Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 542
Appeal from: Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 8
Parties: ANGELO PETER RUSSO v PRIVATE FUNDS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD, ANNETTE JOY CONN and ROBERT CHRZASZCZ & ASSOCIATES
File number: SAD 8 of 2011
Judge: TRACEY J
Date of judgment: 26 May 2011
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 52
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 25
Cases cited: Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 8 affirmed
SZISM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 158 FCR 292 cited
Date of hearing: 19 May 2011
Place: Melbourne (heard in Adelaide)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 14
Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant did not appear
Counsel for the First, Second and Third Respondents: Mr S Abbott
Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Respondents: Madsen Rowley

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 8 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

ANGELO PETER RUSSO
Appellant
AND:

PRIVATE FUNDS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
First Respondent

ANNETTE JOY CONN
Second Respondent

ROBERT CHRZASZCZ & ASSOCIATES
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 MAY 2011

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.If any party wishes to submit that costs should not follow the event that party should file and serve short written submissions (of no more than two pages) on or before 2 June 2011.

3.If any party files such written submissions any other party may file and serve any answering submissions (of no more than two pages) on or before 9 June 2011.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

SAD 8 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

ANGELO PETER RUSSO
Appellant
AND:

PRIVATE FUNDS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
First Respondent

ANNETTE JOY CONN
Second Respondent

ROBERT CHRZASZCZ & ASSOCIATES
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

26 MAY 2011

PLACE:

MELBOURNE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 29 September 2010 a Registrar of the Court made a sequestration order against the estate of Mr Angelo Russo.  Mr Russo sought a review of the Registrar’s order.  On 13 January 2011 a Federal Magistrate refused the application:  see Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 8. On the following day Mr Russo filed a notice of appeal against the Federal Magistrate’s decision.

  2. Mr Russo has done nothing to prosecute the appeal.

  3. The appeal was listed for hearing before me on 19 May 2011.  On the previous day a letter was sent to the Registry of the Court.  Its author, Ms Gina Costanzo,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] FCA 542
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Russo versus Private Funds Management Pty Ltd, the dispute arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland, specifically in its appellate division. The appellant, Russo, contested a decision made by the trial judge in a legal proceeding against the respondent, Private Funds Management Pty Ltd. Russo's appeal challenged the lower court's judgment and sought to overturn or amend the decision in their favour.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of certain provisions within a contract between the parties, as well as the assessment of the trial judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of the contract terms, in his assessment of the evidence presented, or in his application of the law to the facts of the case. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge's decisions were legally sound and whether they were supported by the evidence.

Upon reviewing the matter, the court found that the trial judge had correctly interpreted the contract provisions and had not erred in his assessment of the evidence. The reasoning of the court emphasised the trial judge's thorough consideration of the relevant legal principles and the factual matrix of the case. The appellate court was satisfied that the trial judge had applied the law appropriately and had reached a decision that was supported by the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment of the trial court was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. If any party wishes to submit that costs should not follow the event that party should file and serve short written submissions (of no more than two pages) on or before 2 June 2011.

3. If any party files such written submissions any other party may file and serve any answering submissions (of no more than two pages) on or before 9 June 2011.

Note:

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.