Samuel Tov-Lev & Ors v John Joseph Lowbeer

SAMUEL TOV-LEV & ORS
v
JOHN JOSEPH LOWBEER
[2014] HCASL 166
S79/2014

The respondent was the auditor of a company limited by guarantee ("the company") which owned the land and buildings known as the Holocaust and War Memorial Synagogue at Strathfield, New South Wales. The applicants were the rabbi and members of the congregation of that Synagogue.
On 18 April 2011, the applicants requested the respondent to resign as the company's auditor. The respondent refused.
On 30 June 2011, the applicants commenced proceedings against the respondent and others in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. On 24 April 2013, the Supreme Court made a costs order in the respondent's favour. Following this, the respondent presented a creditor's petition against the applicants in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. On 20 December 2013, Judge Driver granted sequestration orders against the estates of each of the applicants.
On 11 March 2014, the Federal Court of Australia (Rares J) dismissed the applicants' appeal against the sequestration order, holding that there was no reason why sequestration orders should not have been made.
The applicants seek special leave to appeal to this Court. The applicants' draft notice of appeal raises no question of principle. Further, an appeal to this Court would enjoy insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Special leave should be refused.
On 14 August 2014, the applicants filed a summons seeking orders which, in substance, replicate the orders sought in their draft notice of appeal to this Court. There would be no utility in listing the summons for hearing. The summons should be dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave and the summons filed on 14 August 2014.

S.M. Kiefel
11 September 2014 P.A. Keane

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Samuel Tov-Lev & Ors v John Joseph Lowbeer, the applicants, the rabbi and members of the congregation of the Holocaust and War Memorial Synagogue, sought special leave to appeal against the decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The respondents were the auditor of the company that owned the Synagogue and others. The dispute centered around the auditor's refusal to resign following a request by the applicants, leading to a series of legal actions culminating in the sequestration of the applicants' estates. The applicants sought to challenge the sequestration orders and a costs order made in favour of the respondents in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether special leave to appeal should be granted to the applicants. This required the court to consider whether the appeal had sufficient prospects of success and whether any questions of principle were involved. The court had to assess the likelihood of the appeal succeeding and the potential significance of any legal questions raised.

The court found that the applicants' draft notice of appeal did not raise any question of principle. Additionally, the prospects of success for the appeal were deemed insufficient to warrant the grant of special leave. The court concluded that the Federal Court's decision was correct, and there was no utility in proceeding with the appeal. Consequently, the application for special leave was dismissed, and the subsequent summons filed by the applicants was also dismissed. The court directed that an order be made accordingly, dismissing both the application for special leave and the summons.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established