Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1304

Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1304

Leave to appeal refused because proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the applicant's claims sought to re-litigate issues already determined in earlier proceedings or in substance were an abuse of process; differences in statutory basis (ASIC Act versus Trade Practices Act) and respondents added were immaterial; and the order for removal of affidavits was justified as they were scandalous or oppressive in light of related Supreme Court injunctions.

Parties
Applicant: Lynne Maree Rogers; First Respondent: Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd ACN 107 746 798; Second Respondent: Asset Loan Company Pty Ltd ACN 101 054 997; Third Respondent: Paul Alexander Sydney Hare; Fourth Respondent: Russell Frank Percival; Fifth Respondent: Judith Lorraine Hare as Trustee for the Hare Property Trust; Sixth Respondent: Riverstone Nominees Pty Ltd ACN 063 086 546 as Trustee for the Percival Family Trust No 2; Seventh Respondent: Sean Whittle
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Judgment, Abuse of Process, Summary Dismissal, Bankruptcy and Set Off, Removal of Scandalous Material From Court File
Practice and Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Judgment Abuse of Process Summary Dismissal Bankruptcy and Set Off Removal of Scandalous Material From Court File

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynne Maree Rogers

Applicant

Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd ACN 107 746 798

First Respondent

Asset Loan Company Pty Ltd ACN 101 054 997

Second Respondent

Paul Alexander Sydney Hare

Third Respondent

Russell Frank Percival

Fourth Respondent

Judith Lorraine Hare as Trustee for the Hare Property Trust

Fifth Respondent

Riverstone Nominees Pty Ltd ACN 063 086 546 as Trustee for the Percival Family Trust No 2

Sixth Respondent

Sean Whittle

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory judgment under s 24(1A) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the proceeding constitutes an abuse of process as a re-litigation of previously determined matters
  3. 3 Whether applicant had reasonable prospect of success for summary dismissal purposes under s 31A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; the applicant's claims sought to re-litigate issues already determined in earlier proceedings or in substance were an abuse of process; differences in statutory basis (ASIC Act versus Trade Practices Act) and respondents added were immaterial; and the order for removal of affidavits was justified as they were scandalous or oppressive in light of related Supreme Court injunctions.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.