Passehl v Amos [2002] FCA 118

Passehl v Amos [2002] FCA 118

The appellant failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal or comply with procedural requirements, and offered no valid reason for the delay or non-compliance. There was no evidence supporting his challenge to the sequestration order. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution under O 52 r 38.

Parties
Applicant: Richard Passehl; Respondent: Broderick Amos
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Legal Topics
Want of Prosecution, Sequestration Order, Appeal Process
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Want of Prosecution Sequestration Order Appeal 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Passehl

Applicant

Broderick Amos

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-compliance with court rules and delay.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant has demonstrated any real prospect of success on the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to take any steps to prosecute the appeal or comply with procedural requirements, and offered no valid reason for the delay or non-compliance. There was no evidence supporting his challenge to the sequestration order. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution under O 52 r 38.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be taxed.