Legal Research
Cases
Storry v Weir

Storry v Weir

Case [2023] QCA 4 12 January 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Storry v Weir [2023] QCA 4

PARTIES:

VENETIA LOUISE STORRY
(applicant)
v
JONATHON DAVID WEIR
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4681 of 2022
DC No 589 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application – Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 25 March 2022 (Porter KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

12 January 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 December 2022

JUDGES:

Mullins P

ORDERS:

1. Application filed on 6 December 2022 dismissed.

2. Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant became a bankrupt when a sequestration order was made against her estate in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – where the sequestration order was based on the judgment ordered against the applicant in the Magistrates Court for a motor vehicle property damage claim – where an application to the District Court for extensions of time to appeal against the judgment and an order made in the Magistrates Court refusing a stay of that judgment was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was bankrupt – where the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the District Court decision – where the applicant had appealed to the Federal Court against the sequestration order – where the Court of Appeal stayed the application until the outcome of the appeal against the sequestration order was determined – where the applicant filed an application for an order that the stay order be lifted and the application be heard under s 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and the proceeding be cross-vested to the Federal Court – where at the hearing of this application there was no current appeal of the sequestration order but the applicant foreshadowed bringing such a proceeding – whether the stay order should be lifted and the proceeding should be cross-vested to the Federal Court

Cox v Journeaux [No 2] (1935) 52 CLR 713; [1935] HCA 48, cited
Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362, related
Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 794, related
Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 1484, related
Storry v Weir (No 2) [2022] FCA 1360, related
Weir v Storry [2022] FedCFamC2G 183, related

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
P C M Van Grinsven for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
SLF Lawyers for the respondent

MULLINS P: Ms Storry became a bankrupt when a sequestration order was made against her estate on 18 March 2022 by his Honour Judge Egan in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (FCFCOA): Weir v Storry [2022] FedCFamC2G 183. The petitioning creditor was Mr Weir who is the respondent to this proceeding. Although the proceeding was commenced by notice of appeal filed on 22 April 2022, Ms Storry is seeking to appeal against the order of his Honour Judge Porter KC made in the…

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 Storry v Weir

Details

AGLC: Storry v Weir [2023] QCA 4
Case: [2023] QCA 4
Decision Date: 12 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Storry v Weir was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant, Storry, had become bankrupt after a sequestration order was made against her estate in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). The sequestration order was based on a judgment against Storry in the Magistrates Court for a motor vehicle property damage claim. Storry had applied to the District Court for extensions of time to appeal against the judgment and a stay of the judgment was refused. This application was dismissed because Storry was declared bankrupt. Storry then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the District Court decision. She had also appealed the sequestration order to the Federal Court. The Court of Appeal stayed Storry’s application until the outcome of the appeal against the sequestration order was determined. Subsequently, Storry filed an application for an order that the stay order be lifted and her application be heard under section 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and the proceeding be cross-vested to the Federal Court. At the hearing of this application, there was no current appeal of the sequestration order, but Storry foreshadowed bringing such a proceeding.

The court was required to decide whether the stay order should be lifted and the proceeding should be cross-vested to the Federal Court. The court examined the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the stay order was made to avoid potential conflicts and complications in the legal proceedings. The court also considered that Storry had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim that she would be able to proceed with the appeal against the sequestration order. The court concluded that the stay order should remain in place and the application for cross-vesting should be dismissed.

The application filed on 6 December 2022 was dismissed. Costs were reserved. The court found that the stay order should remain in place and the application for cross-vesting should be dismissed. The court noted that Storry had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim that she would be able to proceed with the appeal against the sequestration order. The court also noted that the stay order was made to avoid potential conflicts and complications in the legal proceedings. The dismissal of the application means that Storry’s appeal against the District Court decision is still stayed until the outcome of the appeal against the sequestration order is determined. The court’s decision ensures that the legal proceedings are managed in an orderly and efficient manner, avoiding potential conflicts and complications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application filed on 6 December 2022 dismissed.

2. Costs reserved.

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.

Actions

Citations

Storry v Weir [2023] QCA 4

Most Recent Citation

Storry v Business Licensing Authority [2023] FCA 964

Cases Citing This Decision

Storry v Clout [2024] FCA 1274
Citation 1 (Para 7)

…on for a stay of the orders of 4 December 2020, which was dismissed on 7 December 2021: see Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362 at [8]–[13]; Storry v Weir [2023] QCA 4 at [2]–[3].…
Storry v Parkyn (Vexatious Proceedings Order) [2024] FCAFC 100
Citation 2 (Para 29)

…ught to appeal an order made by the QDC dismissing a claim for property damage that had been discontinued by her trustee, Mr Clout: see Storry v Weir [2023] QCA 4 (at [4], [6] per Mullins P). Mullins P usefully set out Ms Storry’s uniformly unsuccessful endeavours in this Court concerning her sequestration orde…
Storry v Parkyn [2024] FCAFC 67
Citation 3 (Para 11)

…023] FCA 964; Storry v Business Licensing Authority (No 3) [2023] FCA 245; Storry v Business Licensing Authority (No 2) [2023] FCA 102; Storry v Weir [2023] QCA 4; Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 1484; Storry v Weir (No 2) [2022] FCA 1360; Storry v Business Licensing Authority [2022] FCA 1321; Storry v Weir [2022] FCA…
Storry v Business Licensing Authority [2023] FCA 964
Citation 4 (Para 26)

…n order were closed by the judgment of Logan J: Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 1484. Ms Storry’s Supreme Court proceedings remain stayed: Storry v Weir [2023] QCA 4. The primary judge took into account the circumstances of Ms Storry’s challenges to her bankruptcy which, at the time of judgment, had reached finality u…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 1484
Citation 1 (Para 12)

…against the judgment given on 15 November 2022 and that the Registrar should be directed not to accept the notice of appeal for filing: Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 1484.…
Storry v Weir (No 2) [2022] FCA 1360
Citation 2 (Para 12)

…quirements which must be met in the exercise of the jurisdiction to set aside the judgment dismissing her appeal on 7 July 2022: Storry v Weir (No 2) [2022] FCA 1360. Ms Storry then sought to file an application to challenge the dismissal of her application to set aside the judgment given on her appeal. Logan J co…
Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 794
Citation 3 (Para 12)

…ation order made by Judge Egan. Her appeal against the making of the sequestration order was then dismissed by Thomas J on 7 July 2022: Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 794. Ms Storry then made a further application seeking a stay of the sequestration order in connection with an application to set aside the judgment of T…
Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362
Citation 4 (Para 12)

…All proceedings which Ms Storry has brought to date in the Federal jurisdiction have been unsuccessful. She was unsuccessful in Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362 in applying for interim orders to stay the sequestration order made by Judge Egan. Her appeal against the making of the sequestration order was then dismisse…
Weir v Storry [2022] FedCFamC2G 183
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…gainst her estate on 18 March 2022 by his Honour Judge Egan in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (FCFCOA): Weir v Storry [2022] FedCFamC2G 183. The petitioning creditor was Mr Weir who is the respondent to this proceeding. Although the proceeding was commenced by notice of appeal filed on 22…
Cox v Journeaux (No 2) [1935] HCA 48
Citation 6

…should be lifted and the proceeding should be cross-vested to the Federal Court Cox v Journeaux [No 2] (1935) 52 CLR 713; [1935] HCA 48, cited Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362, related Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 794, related Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 1484, related Storry v Weir (No 2) [2022] FCA 1360, related Weir v St…

Legislation Cited

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 4)
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 8)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (TAS)
1 mention (from Para 8)
Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 8)

CITATION:	Storry v Weir [2023] QCA 4
PARTIES:	VENETIA LOUISE STORRY (applicant) v JONATHON DAVID WEIR (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 4681 of 2022 DC No 589 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 25 March 2022 (Porter KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	12 January 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 December 2022
JUDGES:	Mullins P
ORDERS:	1. Application filed on 6 December 2022 dismissed. 2. Costs reserved.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant became a bankrupt when a sequestration order was made against her estate in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) – where the sequestration order was based on the judgment ordered against the applicant in the Magistrates Court for a motor vehicle property damage claim – where an application to the District Court for extensions of time to appeal against the judgment and an order made in the Magistrates Court refusing a stay of that judgment was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was bankrupt – where the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the District Court decision – where the applicant had appealed to the Federal Court against the sequestration order – where the Court of Appeal stayed the application until the outcome of the appeal against the sequestration order was determined – where the applicant filed an application for an order that the stay order be lifted and the application be heard under s 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and the proceeding be cross-vested to the Federal Court – where at the hearing of this application there was no current appeal of the sequestration order but the applicant foreshadowed bringing such a proceeding – whether the stay order should be lifted and the proceeding should be cross-vested to the Federal Court Cox v Journeaux [No 2] (1935) 52 CLR 713; [1935] HCA 48, cited Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 362, related Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 794, related Storry v Weir [2022] FCA 1484, related Storry v Weir (No 2) [2022] FCA 1360, related Weir v Storry [2022] FedCFamC2G 183, related
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf P C M Van Grinsven for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf SLF Lawyers for the respondent