Singh v Khan

The matter of Singh v Khan involved an appeal against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which had refused an application to set aside a sequestration order. The dispute centred on the refusal by the primary judge to allow cross-examination and an interlocutory application. The applicant contended that the primary judge had failed to discharge their judicial function and argued that the reasons provided by the judge were inadequate. Additionally, it was claimed that the primary judge should have examined the matter more thoroughly and provided written reasons without delay.

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.