Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter [2022] FCA 336

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Porter [2022] FCA 336

Leave to appeal should be refused because most grounds are new and leave to raise them is unlikely to be granted; the prospects of success on permitted grounds are poor; the sums in dispute are modest; no substantial injustice would result from refusal; and granting leave would be contrary to the overarching purpose of ensuring efficient and proportionate litigation as required by s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; leave to appeal refused; proceeding dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'bankruptcy Administration' 'costs Orders' 'cross Border Insolvency']
['commercial Law' 'corporations Law' 'insolvency Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'bankruptcy Administration' 'costs Orders' 'cross Border Insolvency']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted in respect of interlocutory orders where the applicant was not a party below' 'Whether the primary judge erred in approving costs and indemnity to local representatives and applicant' 'Whether substantial injustice would arise if leave is refused' 'Whether new arguments can be raised on appeal that were not argued below']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal should be refused because most grounds are new and leave to raise them is unlikely to be granted; the prospects of success on permitted grounds are poor; the sums in dispute are modest; no substantial injustice would result from refusal; and granting leave would be contrary to the overarching purpose of ensuring efficient and proportionate litigation as required by s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; leave to appeal refused; proceeding dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time be dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal be refused.' "The respondents' application for security for costs be dismissed." 'The proceeding be dismissed with costs, such costs to include all the costs of the proceeding.' "The respondents' costs be quantified on a lump sum basis." 'On...