Perrett v Ray [2007] FCA 1920

Perrett v Ray [2007] FCA 1920

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was futile and hopeless: the matters for which Mr Perrett sought a jury trial did not identify questions of fact, but were questions of law or requests for orders or joinder; the affidavit material could not convert them into questions of fact; any issue about representation by Mr Gargan would not justify leave because Mr Perrett lost nothing by not having a non-legal practitioner pursue a manifestly hopeless motion; and the application was appropriately determined by a single Judge. The respondent's costs were ordered on an indemnity basis because the application was hopeless and put Mr Ray's legal advisers to inconvenience and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders in a Bankruptcy Proceeding / Notice of Motion Filed on 29 October 2007 Heard and Determined by a Single Judge
Outcome
Application dismissed with indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'trial of Question of Fact by Jury in Bankruptcy Proceedings' 'representation by Non Legal Practitioner' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor Costs Liability']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'federal Court Appellate Jurisdiction' 'costs'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order' 'trial of Question of Fact by Jury in Bankruptcy Proceedings' 'representation by Non Legal Practitioner' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor Costs Liability']

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 Interlocutory Orders in a Bankruptcy Proceeding / Notice of Motion Filed on 29 October 2007 Heard and Determined by a Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from Graham J's interlocutory orders dismissing Mr Perrett's motion and ordering indemnity costs." "Whether the asserted matters in Mr Perrett's amended notice of motion identified questions of fact suitable for trial by jury under s 30(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966." 'Whether any refusal to allow Mr Perrett to be represented by Mr PA Gargan justified leave to appeal.' 'Whether the application for leave to appeal should be heard by a Full Court or a single Judge.' 'Whether Mr Knaggs should be ordered to pay costs of the failed application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was futile and hopeless: the matters for which Mr Perrett sought a jury trial did not identify questions of fact, but were questions of law or requests for orders or joinder; the affidavit material could not convert them into questions of fact; any issue about representation by Mr Gargan would not justify leave because Mr Perrett lost nothing by not having a non-legal practitioner pursue a manifestly hopeless motion; and the application was appropriately determined by a single Judge. The respondent's costs were ordered on an indemnity basis because the application was hopeless and put Mr Ray's legal advisers to inconvenience and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application brought by notice of motion filed on 29 October 2007 be dismissed.' 'The applicant, Paul John Perrett, pay the costs of the respondent, Greg Ray, of the proceeding on the indemnity basis.']