Cheung v Burness (Trustee) [2018] FCA 1145

Cheung v Burness (Trustee) [2018] FCA 1145

The applicant had not provided an acceptable explanation for delay, had not established solvency, and no appealable error was shown in the exercise of discretion of the primary judge under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The orders sought for extension of time to appeal and for annulment were properly refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Hearing on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['annulment of Bankruptcy' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'exercise of Discretion' 'solvency' 'costs Orders']
['bankruptcy and Insolvency'] ['annulment of Bankruptcy' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'exercise of Discretion' 'solvency' 'costs Orders']

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

Appeal / Judgment After Hearing on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the orders of the Federal Circuit Court' 'Whether there is any appealable error in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)' 'Whether the bankruptcy should be annulled']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had not provided an acceptable explanation for delay, had not established solvency, and no appealable error was shown in the exercise of discretion of the primary judge under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The orders sought for extension of time to appeal and for annulment were properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time to appeal is dismissed.' 'Pursuant to Rule 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the application is treated as the filing of an appeal from the orders pronounced on 4 September 2017.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant to pay the respondents' costs, such costs to be...