Shaw v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy Vic 1697/14/1 of Australian Financial Security Authority

In the case of Shaw v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy Vic 1697/14/1 of Australian Financial Security Authority, the appellant, who was self-represented, sought leave to appeal the primary judge's decision to dismiss an interlocutory application for an order restraining the respondent's solicitors from acting in the proceeding. The appellant argued that the respondent's solicitors were unnecessarily adversarial and obstructed the court and the appellant. The appellant further alleged that the respondent's solicitors were too close to the respondent and provided inadequate responses to his requests for information. The appellant contended that the primary judge should have restrained the respondent's solicitors from acting further in the proceeding.

The court was required to decide whether the appellant's application for leave to appeal the interlocutory orders of the primary judge made on 29 August 2019 should be granted. The court considered the statutory charge in s 37M(3) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) that the power to grant leave must be exercised in a way that best promotes the overarching purpose, being the just resolution of disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. The court also considered the well-settled principles for granting leave to appeal, which require the applicant to show that the decision to be appealed is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant its reconsideration on appeal and that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The court found that the appellant's application for leave to appeal was not attended with sufficient doubt and that the primary judge's decision was not attended by misdirection.

The court granted the appellant leave to file his application for leave to appeal out of time but refused the application for leave to appeal the interlocutory orders of the primary judge made on 29 August 2019. The court also dismissed the appeal in respect of the orders made by the primary judge on 26 September 2019. The court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.