Solomon v Green [2001] FCA 1586

Solomon v Green [2001] FCA 1586

The Full Court dismissed the appeal from Wilcox J because Mr Solomon did not demonstrate error warranting appellate intervention: the only established non-compliance with the Bankruptcy Rules was not material to the sequestration order, and the evidence, including the video recording, did not establish a prima facie case justifying the Court going behind the District Court judgment debt. Leave to appeal from Whitlam J and Gyles J was refused because no error of principle or other error was revealed in their judgments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal and Applications for Leave to Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Judgments of Single Judges of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused in both leave applications.
Legal Topics
['sequestration Order' 'stay of Sequestration Order' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'leave to Appeal' 'going Behind a Judgment Debt' 'bankruptcy Rules Compliance']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['sequestration Order' 'stay of Sequestration Order' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'leave to Appeal' 'going Behind a Judgment Debt' 'bankruptcy Rules Compliance']

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

Bankruptcy Appeal and Applications for Leave to Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Judgments of Single Judges of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Wilcox J erred in making a sequestration order against Mr Solomon's estate." 'Whether alleged non-compliance with the Bankruptcy Rules by the petitioning creditors warranted setting aside the sequestration order.' 'Whether the Federal Court should go behind the District Court judgment debt on the basis that it was allegedly procured by improper conduct involving interference with evidence.' "Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Whitlam J's refusal to stay the sequestration order." "Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Gyles J's dismissal of the application to annul Mr Solomon's bankruptcy."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court dismissed the appeal from Wilcox J because Mr Solomon did not demonstrate error warranting appellate intervention: the only established non-compliance with the Bankruptcy Rules was not material to the sequestration order, and the evidence, including the video recording, did not establish a prima facie case justifying the Court going behind the District Court judgment debt. Leave to appeal from Whitlam J and Gyles J was refused because no error of principle or other error was revealed in their judgments.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused in both leave applications.

Orders

  • ['The appeal against the judgment of Wilcox J of 5 June 2001 be dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against the judgment of Whitlam J of 9 July 2001 be refused.' 'Leave to appeal against the judgment of Gyles J of 28 August 2001 be refused.' "Mr David Solomon pay the respondents' costs in each matter, such costs to be...