Vescio v Australian and New Zealand Bank Ltd [2005] FCA 1016

Vescio v Australian and New Zealand Bank Ltd [2005] FCA 1016

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the nearly five-year delay and failed to show any basis that the sequestration order ought not to have been made or that the statutory basis for annulment under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was addressed. His complaints concerned the liquidation of Leunam rather than the validity of the sequestration order, so the proposed appeal from Conti J's judgment had no chance of success and the proceedings were misconceived.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From Dismissal of an Application to Annul Bankruptcy / Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['annulment of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Order' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'prospects of Success']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['annulment of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Order' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'prospects of Success']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for an Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From Dismissal of an Application to Annul Bankruptcy / Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special reasons existed to extend time to file and serve a notice of appeal nearly five years after the judgment dismissing the annulment application.' 'Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had prospects of success, including whether any basis was shown that the sequestration order ought not to have been made or that s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was engaged.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the nearly five-year delay and failed to show any basis that the sequestration order ought not to have been made or that the statutory basis for annulment under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was addressed. His complaints concerned the liquidation of Leunam rather than the validity of the sequestration order, so the proposed appeal from Conti J's judgment had no chance of success and the proceedings were misconceived.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed with costs.']