Fiore v Roufeil [2019] FCA 1774

Fiore v Roufeil [2019] FCA 1774

None of the grounds for interim relief were sufficiently arguable or supported by evidence. The balance of convenience was against the grant of relief, and applicants failed to demonstrate privilege or abuse of process. Deemed service was granted due to the impracticality of personal service in the context.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Relief and Deemed Service / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
['interim Relief' 'deemed Service' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'abuse of Process']
['bankruptcy' 'practice and Procedure'] ['interim Relief' 'deemed Service' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'abuse of Process']

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 Interim Relief and Deemed Service / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interim relief should be granted restraining the production of documents under s 77A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)' 'Whether documents the subject of the notice are privileged' 'Whether notice under s 77A constitutes an abuse of process' 'Whether deemed service should be ordered under r 10.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds for interim relief were sufficiently arguable or supported by evidence. The balance of convenience was against the grant of relief, and applicants failed to demonstrate privilege or abuse of process. Deemed service was granted due to the impracticality of personal service in the context.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • ['The application and accompanying affidavit filed 28 October 2019 is deemed to have been served on the respondents on 28 October 2019 pursuant to r 10.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'The application is refused.']