Johnston v Judge Middleton [2019] FCA 966

Johnston v Judge Middleton [2019] FCA 966

The applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the originating or interlocutory applications because he lacked standing to challenge Judge Middleton's decision concerning Ms Johnston's bankruptcy. He was not a party to the proceeding before Judge Middleton, the issues he raised were matters that could properly have been pursued by Ms Johnston, and his concern for Ms Johnston, personal strain, moral opposition to the legal system, financial support of Ms Johnston, alleged creditor status, and asserted property interest did not give him a legal interest sufficient to prosecute the applications. The substantive proceeding was manifestly hopeless and was dismissed under...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Application Pursuant to S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) Seeking Judicial Review Relief, Injunctive Relief and an Account of Profits / Hearing of Interlocutory Application and Interlocutory Relief; Summary Dismissal of Interlocutory and Originating Applications on the Court's Own Initiative
Outcome
The interlocutory application and originating application were dismissed; costs submissions were permitted and, if no respondent costs submissions were filed, there would be no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'standing' 'judicial Review' 'sequestration Order' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'bankruptcy'] ['summary Dismissal' 'standing' 'judicial Review' 'sequestration Order' 'costs']

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

Application Pursuant to S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) Seeking Judicial Review Relief, Injunctive Relief and an Account of Profits / Hearing of Interlocutory Application and Interlocutory Relief; Summary Dismissal of Interlocutory and Originating Applications on the Court's Own Initiative

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant had standing to seek relief concerning Judge Middleton's decision in Lion Finance Pty Ltd v Belinda Johnston [2018] FCCA 2745 and the sequestration order against Ms Belinda Johnston's estate" 'Whether the interlocutory application and originating application had any reasonable prospect of success' 'Whether the Court should dismiss the proceeding on its own initiative under rr 1.40 and 26.01(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)' 'Whether costs should be ordered following dismissal']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the originating or interlocutory applications because he lacked standing to challenge Judge Middleton's decision concerning Ms Johnston's bankruptcy. He was not a party to the proceeding before Judge Middleton, the issues he raised were matters that could properly have been pursued by Ms Johnston, and his concern for Ms Johnston, personal strain, moral opposition to the legal system, financial support of Ms Johnston, alleged creditor status, and asserted property interest did not give him a legal interest sufficient to prosecute the applications. The substantive proceeding was manifestly hopeless and was dismissed under...

Court Disposition

The interlocutory application and originating application were dismissed; costs submissions were permitted and, if no respondent costs submissions were filed, there would be no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 18 May 2019 be dismissed.' 'The originating application filed on 8 April 2019 be dismissed.' 'The First Respondent and the Third Respondent may file any submissions in relation to costs by 4.00 pm on 5 July 2019.' 'In the event that the First Respondent and/or the Third...