Stankovic v The Hills Shire Council [2013] FCA 765

Stankovic v The Hills Shire Council [2013] FCA 765

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not establish that the primary judge's summary dismissal was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court and did not identify any arguable error. The applicant's annulment claim had no reasonable prospect of success, the damages and related claims were unsupported or misconceived, and the interlocutory and additional applications depended on leave being granted or on a proceeding that had been dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Dismissal of Proceeding, With Interlocutory and Additional Applications / Leave to Appeal and Interlocutory Applications Heard After Summary Dismissal of the Originating Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; interlocutory application and additional applications dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Order' 'pro Bono Legal Assistance' 'trial by Jury' 'injunctions' 'stay of Orders' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'summary Dismissal' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Order' 'pro Bono Legal Assistance' 'trial by Jury' 'injunctions' 'stay of Orders' 'costs']

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 From Summary Dismissal of Proceeding, With Interlocutory and Additional Applications / Leave to Appeal and Interlocutory Applications Heard After Summary Dismissal of the Originating Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the judgment of 4 July 2013 summarily dismissing the proceeding.' 'Whether the applicant had any reasonable prospect of obtaining annulment of his bankruptcy under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).' "Whether the applicant's claims for damages, conspiracy, unconscionable conduct, breach of s 30(5)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), and claims concerning legal fees disclosed any basis for the proceeding to continue." 'Whether the applicant should receive pro bono legal assistance or trial by jury.' 'Whether injunctions or stays should be granted concerning earlier Federal Court orders and the Kellyville land.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not establish that the primary judge's summary dismissal was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court and did not identify any arguable error. The applicant's annulment claim had no reasonable prospect of success, the damages and related claims were unsupported or misconceived, and the interlocutory and additional applications depended on leave being granted or on a proceeding that had been dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; interlocutory application and additional applications dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ["Leave to appeal from the Court's judgment given on 4 July 2013 be refused." 'The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 9 July 2013 be dismissed.' 'The applicant\'s applications represented by the "notices of motion" filed on 18 July 2013 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs."]