Chisholm v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 1234

Chisholm v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 1234

Leave to appeal was refused because no error was shown in Finn J's conclusion that the Registrar's winding up order was voidable and not void; the Registrar's exercise of delegated power under s 35A was to be treated as an order of the Court; and the practical question of continuing legal effect depended on the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA), an issue pending in the High Court, so no real purpose would be served by deciding only part of the question.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against an Order of Finn J Dismissing the Applicant's Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['validity of Winding Up Order' "registrar's Delegated Powers" 'void or Voidable Orders' 'unconstitutional State Reference of Power' 'remedial State Jurisdiction Legislation' 'leave to Appeal']
['corporations Law' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'constitutional Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['validity of Winding Up Order' "registrar's Delegated Powers" 'void or Voidable Orders' 'unconstitutional State Reference of Power' 'remedial State Jurisdiction Legislation' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against an Order of Finn J Dismissing the Applicant's Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a winding up order made by a Registrar under a power later recognised as founded on a constitutionally impermissible State conferral was void or voidable.' "Whether a Registrar's exercise of delegated power under s 35A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) was to be treated as an order of the Court." 'Whether the delegation to a Registrar was ineffective if the Court lacked power to wind up the company.' 'Whether the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA) gave continuing legal effect to the winding up and liquidator appointment orders.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted while related issues were reserved in the High Court in Re Macks; Ex parte Saint.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because no error was shown in Finn J's conclusion that the Registrar's winding up order was voidable and not void; the Registrar's exercise of delegated power under s 35A was to be treated as an order of the Court; and the practical question of continuing legal effect depended on the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999 (SA), an issue pending in the High Court, so no real purpose would be served by deciding only part of the question.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be refused.']