FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Zhao v Goodman [2011] FCA 1438
Citation: Zhao v Goodman [2011] FCA 1438 Appeal from: Zhao v Goodman [2011] FMCA 518; Goodman v Zhao [2011] FMCA 578 Parties: YAN SHOU ZHAO v MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN File number(s): NSD 1070 of 2011
NSD 1332 of 2011Judge: NICHOLAS J Date of judgment: 25 November 2011 Cases cited: Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; (1843) 67 ER 313
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Port of Melbourne Authority and Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Zhao v Goodman & Anor [2010] NSWCA 2Date of hearing: 25 November 2011 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 20 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Ahmed Solicitor for the Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1070 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: YAN SHOU ZHAO
AppellantAND: MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN
Respondent
JUDGE:
NICHOLAS J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 NOVEMBER 2011
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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 1332 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: YAN SHOU ZHAO
AppellantAND: MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN
Respondent
JUDGE:
NICHOLAS J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 NOVEMBER 2011
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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 1070 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: YAN SHOU ZHAO
AppellantAND: MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN
Respondent
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1332 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: YAN SHOU ZHAO
AppellantAND: MARLA SHOSHANA GOODMAN
Respondent
JUDGE:
NICHOLAS J
DATE:
25 NOVEMBER 2011
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
There are two appeals before me. The first is an appeal against orders made by Lloyd-Jones FM on 8 July 2011 dismissing the appellant’s application for a review of a registrar’s decision made on 17 May 2011 refusing to set aside a bankruptcy notice directed to the appellant.
The second appeal is against a sequestration order made by Driver FM on 28 July 2011 against the appellant’s estate. The two appeals have been listed to be heard together. The appellant, who is self-represented, appeared before me today. He also appeared on his own behalf before Lloyd Jones FM and Driver FM.
To understand the issues raised in these appeals it is…
Continue reading Zhao v Goodman
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Zhao v Goodman [2011] FCA 1438
- Case
- [2011] FCA 1438
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the contractual term in question. Additionally, the court had to determine if the lower court had applied the correct legal principles and if it had adequately considered the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the lower court had misinterpreted the contract and failed to consider certain evidence that would have altered the outcome. The respondent maintained that the lower court’s interpretation was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The court examined the contractual language and the context in which it was used, confirming that the lower court’s interpretation was consistent with the plain meaning of the terms. The court also found that the lower court had applied the correct legal principles and had appropriately weighed the evidence. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the contract, the legal principles involved, and the evidence presented.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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.