Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 2) [2014] FCA 379

Tov-Lev v Lowbeer (No 2) [2014] FCA 379

The appellants failed to show any error in the making of the sequestration orders or any basis for annulment: they provided no evidence of solvency, no legitimate claim to indemnity, and no admissible or credibly pleaded fraud. The subpoenas were rightly set aside for want of forensic purpose. The appeal and annulment application were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Originating Application (annulment) From Bankruptcy Orders / Judgment on Appeal and Annulment Application
Outcome
Appeal and application for annulment dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['sequestration Orders' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'enforcement of Costs Orders' 'indemnity Under Company Constitution' 'setting Aside Subpoenas' 'fraud as Ground for Going Behind Judgment' 'solvency in Bankruptcy Proceedings']
['bankruptcy' 'corporations'] ['sequestration Orders' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'enforcement of Costs Orders' 'indemnity Under Company Constitution' 'setting Aside Subpoenas' 'fraud as Ground for Going Behind Judgment' 'solvency in Bankruptcy 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Originating Application (annulment) From Bankruptcy Orders / Judgment on Appeal and Annulment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sequestration orders under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) should be set aside or annulled' "Whether the appellants were entitled to indemnity under the company's constitution for the judgment debt" 'Whether allegations of fraud justified the Court going behind the judgment debt' 'Whether subpoenas set aside below should have been restored' 'Whether the appellants were solvent such that sequestration should not have been ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to show any error in the making of the sequestration orders or any basis for annulment: they provided no evidence of solvency, no legitimate claim to indemnity, and no admissible or credibly pleaded fraud. The subpoenas were rightly set aside for want of forensic purpose. The appeal and annulment application were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and application for annulment dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondent's costs." 'Any stay of the sequestration orders against the appellants, including that ordered by Wigney J on 5 February 2014, be vacated.' 'The application for annulment be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondent's costs."]