Teese v Clinch Neville Long

In the Federal Court of Australia, Ms Ann-Carolyn Teese appealed against the orders made by Driver FM on 20 August 2002, which included a sequestration order against her estate, a directive for the payment of costs from her estate, a requirement to provide a copy of the orders to the Official Trustee within two days, and a 21-day stay on proceedings under the sequestration order. Clinch Neville Long, a firm of solicitors who had been substituted as petitioning creditors, were the respondents. Ms Teese sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against these orders. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Federal Magistrates Court (FMC) erred in refusing applications for adjournment, not going behind the judgment in favor of Clinch Neville Long, accepting the solicitor's statement that there was no written costs agreement, and making a sequestration order while granting a 21-day stay. The court found that the FMC's refusal of the adjournment was a supportable exercise of discretion, and there was no error in not going behind the District Court judgment, as the Legal Profession Act provided for objections to be made to a solicitor's bill of costs. The court also found that the costs agreement provided that costs were payable upon termination of the retainer, and the statement made to the Federal Magistrate was correct. Lastly, the court ruled that the making of the sequestration order did not defeat the 21-day stay, as the obligation to provide a copy of the orders to the Official Receiver was not stayed.

The final orders were: (1) the application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal be dismissed and (2) the applicant pay the respondents' costs.