Majeed v Mahmud [2013] NSWCA 52

Majeed v Mahmud [2013] NSWCA 52

The summons for leave to appeal was not served in compliance with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 11.2 and no order for substituted service was made. There was also an absence of evidence explaining the delay. Additionally, the applicant, being an undischarged bankrupt, likely lacked standing, as the proceedings are vested in the trustee. The applicant did not identify any arguable error in the original judgment. The summons was dismissed due to these procedural and substantive deficiencies.

Parties
Applicant: Mohd Farok Abdul Majeed; Respondent: Onn Mahmud
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Summons for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Dismissal of summons for leave to appeal
Legal Topics
Service of Summons, Substituted Service, Leave to Appeal, Bankruptcy Trustee Vesting, Delay in Proceedings
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Service of Summons Substituted Service Leave to Appeal Bankruptcy Trustee Vesting Delay in Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd Farok Abdul Majeed

Applicant

Onn Mahmud

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Summons for Leave to Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summons for leave to appeal was validly served under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 11.2
  2. 2 Whether there are sufficient prospects of success to stand over the summons
  3. 3 Impact of applicant's bankruptcy on standing to bring proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for leave to appeal was not served in compliance with Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 11.2 and no order for substituted service was made. There was also an absence of evidence explaining the delay. Additionally, the applicant, being an undischarged bankrupt, likely lacked standing, as the proceedings are vested in the trustee. The applicant did not identify any arguable error in the original judgment. The summons was dismissed due to these procedural and substantive deficiencies.

Court Disposition

Dismissal of summons for leave to appeal

Orders

  • The summons for leave to appeal is dismissed.