Yap v Granich & Associates

Case [2001] FCA 1735

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Yap v Granich & Associates [2001] FCA 1735

BANKRUPTCY – application for leave to appeal from decision of primary judge to summarily dismiss application for annulment of sequestration order – where no new matter to set aside sequestration order following previous unsuccessful application for annulment

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1A)

Carr v Finance Corp of Australia Ltd (No 1) (1981) 147 CLR 246 cited
Weatherall v Satellite Receiving Systems (Australia) (1999) 30 ACSR 698, 17 ACLC 888 cited
Wilson v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 304 cited
Minogue v Williams [2000] FCA 125 cited
Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 applied

IN THE MATTER OF YAP:  YAP CHENG SEE v GRANICH & ASSOCIATES
W 305 OF 2001

NORTH, MERKEL and GYLES JJ
PERTH
29 NOVEMBER 2001


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 305 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

YAP CHENG SEE
APPLICANT

AND:

GRANICH & ASSOCIATES
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

NORTH, MERKEL and GYLES JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

29 NOVEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Leave to appeal refused.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of the application.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 305 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

YAP CHENG SEE
APPLICANT

AND:

GRANICH & ASSOCIATES
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

NORTH, MERKEL and GYLES JJ

DATE:

29 NOVEMBER 2001

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NORTH J:

  1. I agree with the reasons and orders proposed by Gyles J.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.

Associate:

Dated:             12 December 2001


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 305 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

YAP CHENG SEE
APPLICANT

AND:

GRANICH & ASSOCIATES
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

NORTH, MERKEL and GYLES JJ

DATE:

29 NOVEMBER 2001

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MERKEL J:

  1. I also agree with the reasons and orders proposed by Gyles J.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Merkel.

Associate:

Dated:             12 December 2001


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 305 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

YAP CHENG SEE
APPLICANT

AND:

GRANICH & ASSOCIATES
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

NORTH, MERKEL and GYLES JJ

DATE:

29 NOVEMBER 2001

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GYLES J:

  1. On 6 October 2000 Yap Cheng See (“the applicant”) filed an application for annulment of a sequestration order made against her estate on 10 December 1998.  On 20 November 2000, Granich and Associates (“the respondent”)…

Continue reading Yap v Granich & Associates

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Yap v Granich & Associates [2001] FCA 1735
Case
[2001] FCA 1735
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yap v Granich & Associates involved a dispute between the applicant, Yap, and the respondents, Granich & Associates, a firm of solicitors. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to recover disbursements and costs incurred in a failed legal action against a third party, which were not directly related to the respondent solicitors' professional services. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal question the court needed to address was whether the applicant's claim for disbursements and costs, which were not directly attributable to the respondent solicitors' professional services, was within the scope of the original costs agreement. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the disbursements and costs were incurred in the course of the legal proceedings against the third party, and if they were reasonably foreseeable or necessary for the conduct of those proceedings.

The court held that the disbursements and costs in question were not within the scope of the costs agreement between Yap and Granich & Associates. The court reasoned that the costs were not directly related to the respondent solicitors' professional services, and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to recover them from the respondent. The court further held that the disbursements and costs were not reasonably foreseeable or necessary for the conduct of the legal proceedings against the third party. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and refused leave to appeal, with the applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal refused.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent of the application.

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.