Conde v Hunter [2010] FCA 920

Conde v Hunter [2010] FCA 920

Order 3 of Searles J's judgment was a final order as to costs for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), a costs assessor's certificate had issued, and Mr Conde's challenge to the finality of that order had already been determined against him. Burnett FM was correct to dismiss the annulment application because the sequestration order was based on a judgment entered which had not been set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Concerning Dismissal of an Application Under S 153 B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) to Annul a Sequestration Order / Appeal Heard and Dismissed by a Single Judge of the Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['annulment of Sequestration Order' 'final Judgment or Order Under S 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)' 'costs Order as Basis for Bankruptcy Proceedings' 'appeal From Federal Magistrates Court']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['annulment of Sequestration Order' 'final Judgment or Order Under S 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth)' 'costs Order as Basis for Bankruptcy Proceedings' 'appeal From Federal Magistrates Court']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Concerning Dismissal of an Application Under S 153 B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (cth) to Annul a Sequestration Order / Appeal Heard and Dismissed by a Single Judge of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 3 of the judgment of Searles J made in the District Court on 14 November 2008 was a final judgment or order for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).' 'Whether there was a basis to set aside or annul the sequestration order made against Mr Conde on 7 October 2009.']

Ratio Decidendi

Order 3 of Searles J's judgment was a final order as to costs for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), a costs assessor's certificate had issued, and Mr Conde's challenge to the finality of that order had already been determined against him. Burnett FM was correct to dismiss the annulment application because the sequestration order was based on a judgment entered which had not been set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of appeal filed on 25 February 2010 be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the second respondent's costs of the appeal, to be agreed or assessed."]