Legal Research
Cases
RYAN v HILL

RYAN v HILL

Case [2020] SADC 58 20 May 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Against a Master's Decision)
RYAN v HILL
[2020] SADC 58
Judgment of His Honour Judge Dart
20 May 2020
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - HEARING OF APPEAL
Appeal from Master - order made for interim allocatur - plaintiff appeals against the order - appeal out of time - plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt - plaintiff has no standing to appeal - extension of time not appropriate - Master exercised a discretion - no error in the exercise of the discretion.
Held:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal, certified fit for counsel.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 s 58, s 60(2), s 60(3), s 116(2)(g), referred to.
Cummings v Claremont Petroleum (1996) 185 CLR 124; Goldus Pty Ltd v Australian Mining Pty Ltd [2015] SASCFC 193; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Players Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors v Clone Pty Ltd [2019] SASC 186, considered.

RYAN v HILL
[2020] SADC 58
JUDGE DART:

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order made by a Master on 15 April 2019. The appeal was not instituted until 24 January 2020 and is therefore substantially out of time. The appeal should be dismissed.
Background
On 26 November 2018 Master Blumberg allowed a summary judgment application brought by the defendant in relation to part of the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff’s claim is in defamation. The Master ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application on a solicitor/client basis and that the costs be payable forthwith.
The usual rule in relation to an interlocutory costs order is that no adjudication is conducted until the main proceedings have concluded. The Court, however, has a discretion in Rule 265 to order that costs be adjudicated and paid forthwith. It is that discretion which was exercised by Master Blumberg on 26 November 2018. The costs order is not the subject of this appeal, nor has it been the subject of any appeal.
Pursuant to the costs order, the defendant served a Form 49 setting out her claim for costs. The total amount claimed by the defendant was the sum of $15,044.51. After considering the amount claimed in the Form 49 on 15 April 2019 the Master ordered that an interim allocatur issue in the amount of $7500. It is the order to issue an interim allocatur that is the subject of the appeal. The plaintiff seeks to have the order set aside.
A final allocatur was ordered on 8 July 2019 in the amount of $9204.60. That amount, which included interest and costs, is in addition to the amount in the interim allocatur. There has been no appeal in relation to the final allocatur.
Since the order under appeal was made, the plaintiff has been made a bankrupt by the defendant. A sequestration order was made on 29 October 2019 in the Federal Circuit Court.
Consideration
The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading RYAN v HILL

Details

AGLC: RYAN v HILL [2020] SADC 58
Case: [2020] SADC 58
Decision Date: 20 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ryan v Hill, the plaintiff, Ryan, appealed against an order made by a Master in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The underlying dispute between Ryan and Hill was not detailed in the appeal but revolved around an interim allocatur order. Ryan, who was an undischarged bankrupt, sought to appeal the Master's order, claiming it was erroneous. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ryan, as an undischarged bankrupt, had the standing to appeal the Master's order. Additionally, the court needed to determine if Ryan's appeal, which was filed out of time, could be granted an extension.

The court considered that Ryan, being an undischarged bankrupt, lacked the necessary standing to appeal the Master's order. The appeal process, being a privilege, is not available to bankrupts who have not been discharged. Furthermore, the court examined whether an extension of time for filing the appeal should be granted. It found that the Master's decision to deny an extension was within their discretion and no error was evident in the exercise of that discretion. The court concluded that the Master had appropriately exercised their discretion and no grounds for setting aside the order existed.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The court's reasoning was that Ryan, as an undischarged bankrupt, did not have the legal standing to appeal and the Master's decision not to extend the time for the appeal was not erroneous. The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed and Ryan was to bear the costs associated with the appeal.

Orders