Selth v Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (No 5) [2019] FCA 362

Selth v Australasian Barrister Chambers Pty Ltd (No 5) [2019] FCA 362

The interlocutory applications were dismissed because Mr Minus and the companies did not appear despite notice, Mr Minus had no standing after bankruptcy to file the applications in his own name or as director of the companies, and the companies neither appeared nor filed notices of appearance. The recusal request had no substance because Mr Minus identified no logical connection between Rares J's non-financial membership of the NSW Bar Association and any apprehended departure from impartial decision-making.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Objection to Estimates of Costs Under R 40.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, Including a Recusal Request / Determination and Dismissal of Interlocutory Applications After Case Management Listing
Outcome
Orders made on 22 February 2019 set aside; interlocutory applications dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Object to Estimate of Costs' 'costs Taxation' 'standing of Bankrupt Litigant' 'director Disqualification of Undischarged Bankrupt' 'apprehended Bias and Recusal' 'default of Appearance' 'trade Marks']
['civil Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'corporations' 'intellectual Property'] ['extension of Time to Object to Estimate of Costs' 'costs Taxation' 'standing of Bankrupt Litigant' 'director Disqualification of Undischarged Bankrupt' 'apprehended Bias and Recusal' 'default of Appearance' 'trade Marks']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Objection to Estimates of Costs Under R 40.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, Including a Recusal Request / Determination and Dismissal of Interlocutory Applications After Case Management Listing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Rares J should recuse himself because he was a member of the NSW Bar Association but had no financial interest in it.' 'Whether Mr Minus had standing after bankruptcy to file interlocutory applications in his own name challenging costs taxation.' 'Whether Mr Minus could act for Dispute Resolution Associates Pty Ltd and AUSTBAR Pty Ltd while an undischarged bankrupt disqualified from being a director.' 'Whether the interlocutory applications should be dismissed for non-appearance and lack of proper standing or appearance by the companies.' 'Whether the orders made on 22 February 2019 should be set aside and remade because they had not been entered and errors were identified in the ex tempore reasons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutory applications were dismissed because Mr Minus and the companies did not appear despite notice, Mr Minus had no standing after bankruptcy to file the applications in his own name or as director of the companies, and the companies neither appeared nor filed notices of appearance. The recusal request had no substance because Mr Minus identified no logical connection between Rares J's non-financial membership of the NSW Bar Association and any apprehended departure from impartial decision-making.

Court Disposition

Orders made on 22 February 2019 set aside; interlocutory applications dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['In NSD 975 of 2014, the orders made on 22 February 2019 be set aside pursuant to r 39.04 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.' 'In NSD 975 of 2014, the interlocutory application filed on 14 January 2019 be dismissed.' 'In NSD 975 of 2014, the applicants in the interlocutory application pay the costs of the respondents...