Michaelis, H.M. & Anor v. Contec Nominees Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 185

Michaelis, H.M. & Anor v. Contec Nominees Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 185

The applicants' appeals, including those with related counter-claims, were not proceedings relating to personal injury or wrong within s 60(4)(a), but related to property or contract rights; as bankrupts and absent election by the trustee, they could not continue the appeals in their own names.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Herbert Max Michaelis; Appellant: Nancy Mabel Michaelis; Respondent: Contec Nominees Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Continue Appeals Post Bankruptcy
Outcome
Application dismissed. Applicants cannot continue appeals in their own names. Costs ordered against applicants. Declaration made as to funds and payment to Official Trustee. No jurisdiction as single judge to strike out appeals.
Legal Topics
Effect of Bankruptcy on Civil Appeals, Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) S 60(4), Civil Proceedings and Counter Claims, Jurisdiction of Federal Court on Appeal
Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Effect of Bankruptcy on Civil Appeals Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) S 60(4) Civil Proceedings and Counter Claims Jurisdiction of Federal Court on Appeal

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Herbert Max Michaelis

Appellant

Nancy Mabel Michaelis

Appellant

Contec Nominees Pty. Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Continue Appeals Post Bankruptcy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants, as bankrupts, may continue in their own names appeals commenced prior to bankruptcy under s 60(4) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether counter-claims by applicants fall within s 60(4)(a) as personal injury or wrong done to them
  3. 3 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction as a single judge to strike out appeals

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' appeals, including those with related counter-claims, were not proceedings relating to personal injury or wrong within s 60(4)(a), but related to property or contract rights; as bankrupts and absent election by the trustee, they could not continue the appeals in their own names.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Applicants cannot continue appeals in their own names. Costs ordered against applicants. Declaration made as to funds and payment to Official Trustee. No jurisdiction as single judge to strike out appeals.

Orders

  • Declaration that Herbert Max Michaelis and Nancy Mabel Michaelis are not entitled to continue in their own names the appeals numbered ACT G 64 of 1986, ACT G 65 of 1986, ACT G 66 of 1986, and ACT G 67 of 1986.
  • Applicants to pay respondent's costs of the application.