FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Singh v Khan [2023] FCA 76
Appeal from: Khan v Singh [2021] FCCA 950 File number: NSD 465 of 2021 Judgment of: COLVIN J Date of judgment: 10 February 2023 Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY - appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia - where application to set aside sequestration order refused - where refusal to allow cross‑examination by primary judge - where refusal to allow interlocutory application by primary judge - where applicant contends a failure of the primary judge to discharge the judicial function - where reasons of primary judge were alleged to be inadequate - where the applicant contended the primary judge should have gone behind the judgment - where the primary judge alleged to have failed to provide written reasons without delay - appeal dismissed Legislation: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 78
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW) s 86
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833; (2001) 117 FCR 424
CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] HCA 50; (2019) 268 CLR 76
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
DL v The Queen [2018] HCA 26; (2018) 266 CLR 1
EVA17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 214; (2018) 262 FCR 304
Lowbeer v De Varda [2018] FCAFC 115; (2018) 264 FCR 228
Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36; (2018) 265 CLR 236
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Quach v MLC Limited [2022] FCAFC 202
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd, in the matter of Singh [2020] FCA 886
Singh v Fobupu Pty Ltd, in the matter of Singh [2021] FCAFC 14
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141
VUAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 158; (2004) 238 FCR 588
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 65 Date of hearing: 3 February 2023 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: Mr EAJ Hyde Solicitor for the Respondents: Mills Oakley ORDERS
NSD 465 of 2021 BETWEEN: GURJIT SINGH
Appellant
AND: GHULAM KHAN
First Respondent
SAMINA KHAN
Second Respondent
FOBUPU PTY LTD
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 FEBRUARY 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.Within 14 days, any party seeking an order as to costs shall file submissions of no more than three pages setting out the order sought and reasons why the order should be made, together with any affidavit confined to evidence relevant to the cost order sought.
3.Within 14 days thereafter any submissions…
Continue reading Singh v Khan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Singh v Khan [2023] FCA 76
- Case
- [2023] FCA 76
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the primary judge's actions constituted a failure to discharge their judicial function, particularly in light of the alleged delay in providing written reasons. The court considered whether the delay in providing settled written reasons was sufficient grounds to impugn the decision, and whether the appeal was commenced in a timely manner with available written reasons. The court noted that while a delay in providing written reasons was less than ideal, it did not, by itself, warrant questioning the primary judge's decision.
The court found that the appeal was timely and written reasons were indeed available, and therefore, the contention that the primary judge had failed to discharge their judicial function was unfounded. The court dismissed the appeal and indicated that submissions regarding costs would be allowed, to be dealt with on the papers. The court ordered that any party seeking a costs order must file submissions within 14 days, followed by any replies, and that any application for costs would be determined based on the written submissions.
The appeal was dismissed, and orders were made for the parties to submit written costs applications, with any subsequent replies, and that these applications would be determined on the papers.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Within 14 days, any party seeking an order as to costs shall file submissions of no more than three pages setting out the order sought and reasons why the order should be made, together with any affidavit confined to evidence relevant to the cost order sought.
3. Within 14 days thereafter any submissions in reply of no more than three pages together with any affidavit confined to evidence strictly in reply.
4. Subject to further order, any application for costs shall be determined on the papers.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.