Du Bray v ACW [2019] FCA 1586

Du Bray v ACW [2019] FCA 1586

The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the primary judge's decision or that substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused, as required for leave to be granted. The primary judge correctly identified the aspect of the administration of justice at stake (judicial comity and the protection of the vulnerable creditor), properly applied s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and did not err in making the suppression and pseudonym orders under s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs ordered against applicant; suppression of publication of reasons for 14 days.
Legal Topics
['suppression Orders' 'pseudonym Orders' 'judicial Comity' 'bankruptcy Proceedings' 'leave to Appeal']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy and Insolvency'] ['suppression Orders' 'pseudonym Orders' 'judicial Comity' 'bankruptcy Proceedings' 'leave to Appeal']

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 for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted against suppression and pseudonym orders' 'Whether the primary judge erred in applying s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)' 'Whether the orders made were necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice under s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)' "Whether there was sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the primary judge's decision" 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the primary judge's decision or that substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused, as required for leave to be granted. The primary judge correctly identified the aspect of the administration of justice at stake (judicial comity and the protection of the vulnerable creditor), properly applied s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and did not err in making the suppression and pseudonym orders under s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; costs ordered against applicant; suppression of publication of reasons for 14 days.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be refused.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application as agreed or taxed." 'Pursuant to s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), for a period of 14 days from the date of these orders, these reasons for judgment not be published other...