Sandhu v Owen - [2025] FCA 566

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sandhu v Owen [2025] FCA 566

File number(s): WAD 69 of 2024

Judgment of: JACKSON J

Date of judgment: 9 May 2025

Date of publication of reasons: 30 May 2025

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - application for stay of sequestration order - application adjourned - no stay orders made

Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 60

Division: General Division

Registry: Western Australia

National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency

Number of paragraphs: 21

Date of hearing: 9 May 2025

Solicitor for the Applicant: Roe Legal Services

Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent appeared in person

Counsel for the Trustee: Mr S Taylor

Solicitor for the Trustee: Lavan

ORDERS

WAD 69 of 2024

BETWEEN:
TANVANTH SINGH SANDHU

Applicant

AND:
TRISTAN DAVID OWEN

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 MAY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The time for compliance with paragraph 3 of the orders made on 31 March 2025 (requiring Mr Owen to file and serve any further affidavits in response) is extended to 4.00 pm AWST on 16 May 2025.
2.Any affidavit filed pursuant to paragraph 1 above may include evidence relevant to the question of any stay of the sequestration order made on 14 January 2025.
3.The interlocutory application for a stay of the sequestration order made on 14 January 2025 is adjourned to 10.15 am AWST on 20 May 2025.
4.Costs reserved.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(edited from the transcript)
JACKSON J

Before the Court today on short notice is an application by the respondent, Mr Owen, to renew an interlocutory application for the stay of proceedings under the sequestration order which is the subject of this proceeding. Mr Owen initially made that interlocutory application at the time of applying for a review of the making of the sequestration order by a Registrar of this Court. He also sought an extension of time for the filing of a further affidavit in response, which he has been ordered to file before the hearing of the review application listed for Tuesday, 20 May 2025 (the review is proceeding as a hearing de novo prosecuted by the applicant).
The basis of Mr Owen's application for a stay of proceedings under the sequestration order is to be found in his affidavit affirmed on 7 May 2025. However, Mr Owen had indicated that his proposed further affidavit may include more material which he says is relevant to any ongoing stay application.
As has already been discussed with the parties, I propose to give Mr Owen an extension of time for the filing of the further affidavit to Friday 16 May 2025, with liberty to include in it material relevant to his application for a stay. I also propose to adjourn the application for a stay to be heard at the same time as the review application on 20 May 2025. I acknowledge that there may be matters…

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 Sandhu v Owen

Details

AGLC: Sandhu v Owen [2025] FCA 566
Case: [2025] FCA 566
Decision Date: 9 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sandhu v Owen was heard in the Federal Court, involving an application by Mr. Owen for a stay of a sequestration order made against him on 14 January 2025. The applicant, Mr. Owen, sought to halt the enforcement of the sequestration order, which resulted from a dispute over corporate liabilities. The respondent, Mr. Sandhu, argued against the stay, asserting the need for the sequestration to proceed.

The court was tasked with deciding whether to grant the application for a stay of the sequestration order. This decision hinged on whether Mr. Owen could provide sufficient evidence to justify halting the enforcement of the order. The central legal issue was whether the applicant's circumstances warranted a stay, given the potential impact on his ability to manage his affairs and the implications for creditors.

The court extended the time for Mr. Owen to file and serve any further affidavits in response to the orders made on 31 March 2025. Any affidavit filed could include evidence relevant to the question of any stay of the sequestration order. The interlocutory application for a stay was adjourned to allow for further submissions and evidence. The court reserved its decision on costs, indicating that further consideration would be given to the financial implications of the case. The adjournment aimed to ensure that all relevant information was presented before making a final determination on the stay of the sequestration order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for compliance with paragraph 3 of the orders made on 31 March 2025 (requiring Mr Owen to file and serve any further affidavits in response) is extended to 4.00 pm AWST on 16 May 2025.

2. Any affidavit filed pursuant to paragraph 1 above may include evidence relevant to the question of any stay of the sequestration order made on 14 January 2025.

3. The interlocutory application for a stay of the sequestration order made on 14 January 2025 is adjourned to 10.15 am AWST on 20 May 2025.

4. Costs reserved.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.

File number(s):	WAD 69 of 2024
Judgment of:	JACKSON J
Date of judgment:	9 May 2025
Date of publication of reasons:	30 May 2025
Catchwords:	CORPORATIONS - application for stay of sequestration order - application adjourned - no stay orders made
Legislation:	Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 60
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Western Australia
National Practice Area:	Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area:	General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs:	21
Date of hearing:	9 May 2025
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Roe Legal Services
Counsel for the Respondent:	The respondent appeared in person
Counsel for the Trustee:	Mr S Taylor
Solicitor for the Trustee:	Lavan

ORDER MADE BY:	JACKSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 MAY 2025