Steiner v Strang (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 891

Steiner v Strang (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 891

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant orders restraining the enforcement steps under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) as such remedies fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts. Further, no ancillary or consequential order could be made under section 66 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) absent the making of a family provision order. Even if jurisdiction existed, the Court declined to exercise discretion as the creditors’ enforcement action was not unconscionable or an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Provision / Interlocutory Motion – Notice of Motion
Outcome
Plaintiff’s notice of motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision Claims' 'jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Courts' 'ancillary Orders Under Succession Act' 'inherent Jurisdiction and Abuse of Process']
['succession Law' 'bankruptcy Law' 'equity'] ['family Provision Claims' 'jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Courts' 'ancillary Orders Under Succession Act' 'inherent Jurisdiction and Abuse of Process']

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

Family Provision / Interlocutory Motion – Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court of NSW has jurisdiction to restrain the issue or enforcement of a bankruptcy notice relating to costs orders via its inherent jurisdiction or section 66 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW)' 'Whether consequential or ancillary orders can be made under section 66 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) without a family provision order being made' "Whether enforcement of a bankruptcy judgment or notice in these circumstances constitutes unconscionable conduct or interference with the court's process"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant orders restraining the enforcement steps under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) as such remedies fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts. Further, no ancillary or consequential order could be made under section 66 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) absent the making of a family provision order. Even if jurisdiction existed, the Court declined to exercise discretion as the creditors’ enforcement action was not unconscionable or an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s notice of motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's motion dated 21 June 2017 is dismissed." 'Plaintiff is to pay the costs of the respondents to that motion.' "Respondents' costs of that motion are to be assessed and payable forthwith."]