O’Neill v Piscopo (No 2) [2011] FCA 774

O’Neill v Piscopo (No 2) [2011] FCA 774

The draft supplementary notice of appeal was not in a satisfactory form and did not sufficiently particularise the grounds of appeal in a manner which would justify allowing it to go forward. Directions were made for a further draft and costs ordered against the appellant for the day's hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Directions Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Directions made; matter stood over; costs order against appellant; no final disposition of appeal merits.
Legal Topics
['trustee Conduct' 'leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'bankruptcy Act S 179']

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 / Interlocutory Directions Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing

  1. 1 ['Whether appeal should be summarily dismissed as incompetent or showing no reasonably arguable case' 'Whether grounds of appeal adequately particularised error by Federal Magistrates Court in not directing inquiry under s 179 of Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted with respect to refusal to make order under s 179' 'Appropriateness and content of supplementary notice of appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The draft supplementary notice of appeal was not in a satisfactory form and did not sufficiently particularise the grounds of appeal in a manner which would justify allowing it to go forward. Directions were made for a further draft and costs ordered against the appellant for the day's hearing.

Court Disposition

Directions made; matter stood over; costs order against appellant; no final disposition of appeal merits.

Orders

  • ['The appellant file a further draft supplementary notice of appeal no later than 12 July 2011.' 'The question of whether leave to appeal should be granted in respect of the refusal to make an order under s 179 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) be stood over to the hearing of the appeal on 4 August 2011.' 'The...