| Stratton
v Bowles (No 2) (FCA) - bankruptcy - creditor’s petition
based on Family Court costs order - sequestration order set aside - matter
remitted
(B) |
| In
the matter of Anglican Development Fund Diocese of Bathurst Board (recs and
mgrs apptd) (NSWSC) - corporations - receivers granted
leave to make interim distribution to creditors
(B C) |
| AIG
Australia Ltd v Jaques (No 2) (VSCA) - costs - indemnity
costs sought in respect of appeal on basis of Calderbank offer made at trial -
application refused
(I) |
| Mules
v Ferguson (QCA) - medical negligence - patient suffered injuries
from meningitis - doctor liable - patient awarded damages of $6.7 million
(I) |
| Dipic
v Bunning (QCA) - summary dismissal - limitations - application for
leave to appeal to be dismissed if failure to comply with security for costs
order
(I B) |
| Brisbane
City Council v Newton (QCA) - administrative law - application
for leave to appeal - application to strike out leave application - adjournment
(I G) |
| Kordamentha
Pty Ltd & Calibre Capital Ltd v LM Investment Management Ltd (in liq); Park
& Mullerv Kordamentha Pty Ltd & Calibre Capital Ltd (QSC)
- equity - trusts and trustees - prosecution and defence of proceedings -
directions
(B) |
| Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read) |
Stratton
v Bowles (No 2)
[2015] FCA 43
Federal Court of Australia
Beach J
Bankruptcy - Federal Circuit Court judge
made sequestration order against appellant’s estate on petition of respondent -
Family Court costs order against appellant in respondent’s favour formed basis
for bankruptcy notice - creditor’s petition filed on basis of act of bankruptcy
by non-compliance with notice - appellant sought to challenge costs order - other sufficient cause - s52(2)(b) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) - relevance of
defamation proceedings in New South Wales - held: primary judge did not
sufficiently analyse effect and significance of appellant’s challenge to Family
Court costs order - primary judge did not fully engage with question whether
there was leave to appeal application which embraced Family Court costs order
and merits of potential challenge - no discussion of adjournment of respondent’s
petition to await outcome of Family Court challenge - sequestration order set
aside - matter remitted for determination.
Stratton (B)
|
In the matter of Anglican
Development Fund Diocese of Bathurst Board (recs and mgrs apptd) [2015] NSWSC 6
Supreme
Court of New South Wales
Black
J
Corporations
- plaintiffs in capacity as receivers and managers sought permission to make
interim distribution to creditors of fund in accordance with distribution
schedule - receivers claimed submitted proof of debt lodged by bank reflected
its judgment debt against fund, that bank’s proof of debt admitted; that issues
remained to be resolved in respect of four other claimants and that receiver proposed
to put aside sufficient funds to pay claimants whose proofs of debt were
deferred if proofs ultimately admitted - ss12CA, 12CB, 12GF & 12GM Australian Securities and Investments
Commission Act 2001 (Cth) - ss180, 181, 182, 420(1), 420(2), 420(2)(k),
423, 536, 1317H & 1321 Corporations
Act 2001 (Cth) - held: Court satisfied receivers’ approach to
identification of persons to whom interim distribution should be made or set
aside pending adjudication of claims was appropriate - leave granted to make interim
distribution subject to condition.
In
the matter of Anglican Development Fund Diocese of Bathurst Board (B C)
|
AIG Australia Ltd v Jaques
(No 2)
[2015] VSCA 3
Court
of Appeal of Victoria
Warren
CJ & Neave JA
Costs
- Court of Appeal dismissed appellant’s appeal - respondent sought costs on
indemnity basis - respondent relied on fact that trial judge had awarded indemnity
costs on basis of Calderbank offer made prior to trial - respondent submitted
that appeal costs should also be awarded on indemnity basis to ensure benefits
he obtained as result of trial judge’s order not undermined by additional costs
incurred in meeting appeal - respondent also submitted degree of unreasonableness
of appellant’s rejection of offer to compromise supported application - held:
offers of compromise made pursuant to Pt2 O26 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) were confined
to compromise of claim at trial - Rules now provided for offers of compromise
to be made to compromise appeal pursuant to r26.12 - not suggested such offer
made by respondent - evidence of unreasonableness insufficient to warrant
departing from usual order - appellant to pay respondent’s costs on standard
basis.
AIG
Australia Ltd (I)
|
Mules v Ferguson [2015] QCA 5
Court
of Appeal of Queensland
M
McMurdo P; Applegarth & Boddice JJ
Medical
negligence - appellant suffered injuries and disabilities after contracting
meningitis - appellant sued doctor for failure to undertake proper examination
or make proper enquires as to symptoms - primary judge assessed damages at $6.7
million but dismissed appellant’s claim - appellant contended judge erred in
finding doctor’s breach of care did not cause her injuries and in finding doctor
had a defence under s22 Civil Liability
Act 2003 (Qld) - held (by majority): trial judge’s findings that respondent
breached duty of care open on evidence - trial judge’s findings as to likely
outcome of consultations had respondent not breached duty against weight of
evidence - no evidence sufficient to satisfy respondent’s onus in respect of s22
- appeal allowed - judgment for appellant for $6.7 million.
Mules (I)
|
Dipic v Bunning [2014] QCA 338
Court
of Appeal of Queensland
Holmes
JA
Summary
judgment - limitations - security for costs - applicant filed statement of
claim in relation to alleged agreement that he and wife would give respondents money
to help them buy house or land - respondents obtained summary judgment on basis
statement of claim out of time - applicant sought to appeal - primary judge
ordered applicant to pay security for costs - respondents sought to have
application for leave to appeal dismissed - applicant sought to have order for
security set aside or varied so that security did not have to be provided until
police investigation of claims against respondents completed - held: applicant
had limited prospects of success on appeal - no basis to vary or set aside
order for security for costs - Court not prepared to dismiss application for
leave to appeal out of hand - unless applicant complied with order for security
for costs by certain date, application for leave would be deemed to be
dismissed with costs.
Dipic (I B)
|
Brisbane City Council v
Newton
[2014] QCA 337
Court
of Appeal of Queensland
Holmes
JA
Administrative
law - Appeal Division of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal refused
applicant’s application for leave to appeal from decision concerning his
tenancy of Council property - applicant sought leave to appeal on ground of
QCAT’s lack of jurisdiction - Council sought order striking out application for
leave - held: applicant had asserted Appeal Tribunal did not consider evidence or
appellant’s arguments which were arguably capable of being questions of law as
to procedural fairness - applicant had also raised other matters which were
capable of amounting to questions of law - it could not be said application not
properly instituted - Court did not propose to resolve arguments - there were
practical reasons against embarking as single Judge on determination of application
against Court’s usual practice - applications adjourned.
Brisbane
City Council (I G)
|
Kordamentha Pty Ltd &
Calibre Capital Ltd v LM Investment Management Ltd (in liq); Park & Mullerv
Kordamentha Pty Ltd & Calibre Capital Ltd [2015] QSC 4
Supreme
Court of Queensland
Martin
J
Equity
- trusts and trustees - two applications under s96 Trusts Act 1973 - application for directions whether or not
proceedings should be brought against respondents - application by first
respondent that if direction sought was given, it should defend proceeding -
statement of facts - service - costs estimate - merits of proposed proceeding -
necessity for leave to proceed against company in liquidation - s471B Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - held: directions
given in each application with respect to prosecution and defence of proceedings
in accordance with applications.
Kordamentha
Pty Ltd & Calibre Capital Ltd (B)
|
