Storry v Weir

The case of Storry v Weir concerns an appeal by the appellant against a decision made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (the Court). The appellant challenged the sequestration order made against her estate by Judge Egan on 18 March 2022. The appellant had previously been involved in a lengthy series of legal proceedings with the respondent, stemming from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27 July 2016. This included criminal proceedings that resulted in a conviction and subsequent civil proceedings that led to a judgment against the appellant. Following these proceedings, the respondent served a bankruptcy notice on the appellant on 29 September 2021, and a creditor's petition was subsequently filed on 14 December 2021.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around whether the primary judge made an error in his findings regarding the prospects of success of the further appeal and whether there was a reason for the primary judge to look behind the judgment debt to determine if there was "in truth and reality a debt due to the petitioning creditor". Additionally, the court had to consider whether the primary judge failed to take into account the appellant's pending application and appeal in the District Court.

In dismissing the appeal and the interlocutory application, the Court found that there was no error in the primary judge's decision. The Court concluded that the appellant's appeals against the criminal and civil decisions were unlikely to succeed, and thus, the primary judge's findings regarding the prospects of success were correct. The Court also held that there was no need for the primary judge to look behind the judgment debt because the debt was undisputed and established by the civil judgment. Furthermore, the Court found that the primary judge had considered the appellant's pending application and appeal in the District Court, and there was no failure to take these matters into account.

The Court dismissed the appeal and interlocutory application and ordered that the respondent's costs of the appeal and the interlocutory application be paid from the appellant's estate. The Court also dismissed the appellant's oral application to join the Chief Executive of the Office of Fair Trading as the second respondent to the interlocutory application, with costs to be paid from the appellant's estate.