FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 4) [2014] FCA 797
Citation: Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 4) [2014] FCA 797 Parties: RABBI DR SAMUEL TOV-LEV, DAVID CLIFFE and JOSEPH DE VARDA v JOHN JOSEPH LOWBEER File number: NSD 84 of 2014 Judge: NICHOLAS J Date of judgment: 30 July 2014 Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 179, 181, 181A Cases cited: Lowbeer v Tov-Lev [2013] FCCA 1813
Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 2) [2014] FCA 379
Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 3) [2014] FCA 699
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23Date of hearing: 30 July 2014 Date of publication of reasons: 31 July 2014 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 24 Counsel for the Applicants: The applicants appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G M McGrath Solicitor for the Respondent: Austin Legal Counsel for the Trustee in Bankruptcy: Mr B Skinner Solicitor for the Trustee in Bankruptcy: Gadens
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 84 of 2014
BETWEEN: RABBI DR SAMUEL TOV-LEV
First ApplicantDAVID CLIFFE
Second ApplicantJOSEPH DE VARDA
Third ApplicantAND: JOHN JOSEPH LOWBEER
Respondent
JUDGE:
NICHOLAS J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 JULY 2014
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The balance of the interlocutory application filed 30 May 2014 (consisting of paragraphs 2-7 thereof) is dismissed.
2.The applicants pay the respondent’s costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 84 of 2014
BETWEEN: RABBI DR SAMUEL TOV-LEV
First ApplicantDAVID CLIFFE
Second ApplicantJOSEPH DE VARDA
Third ApplicantAND: JOHN JOSEPH LOWBEER
Respondent
JUDGE:
NICHOLAS J
DATE:
31 JULY 2014
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In June 2011, the applicants commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in relation to a dispute concerning the affairs of Strathfield and District Hebrew Congregation (SDHC). The defendants named in those proceedings were the directors, or at least former directors, of SDHC and the respondent, Mr Lowbeer.
The applicants had no success in the Supreme Court. Various costs orders were made against them in favour of SDHC and Mr Lowbeer. On 23 April 2013, Mr Lowbeer’s costs were assessed at $48,212.62.
Mr Lowbeer applied for a bankruptcy notice which was issued and served on the applicants in May 2013. An application made by the applicants to have the bankruptcy notice set aside or to extend the time for compliance was refused by Judge Raphael of the Federal Circuit Court.
On 20 December 2013, Judge Driver of the Federal Circuit Court made sequestration orders against the applicants’ estates. His Honour stayed the sequestration orders for a period of 21 days: see Lowbeer v Tov-Lev [2013] FCCA 1813.
The applicants appealed Judge Driver’s orders of 20 December 2013. On 5 February 2014, in aid of their appeal, the applicants obtained a further stay…
Continue reading Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 4) [2014] FCA 797
- Case
- [2014] FCA 797
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the orders sought by Tov-Lev were appropriate in the circumstances and whether the application should be granted in part or dismissed in its entirety. The court had to consider the principles of justice and fairness in the enforcement of judgments, as well as the specific provisions of the relevant legislation and rules governing such applications.
The court, after careful consideration of the arguments and the relevant legal principles, determined that the balance of the interlocutory application was not appropriate to be granted. The court found that the orders sought were not warranted given the current state of the proceedings and the evidence presented. Consequently, the balance of the application was dismissed. Additionally, the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that applications for judgment enforcement are both justified and proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The balance of the interlocutory application filed 30 May 2014 (consisting of paragraphs 2-7 thereof) is dismissed.
2. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.