Stec, Tadeusz v Orfanos, Nicholas & Ors [1998] FCA 1647

Stec, Tadeusz v Orfanos, Nicholas & Ors [1998] FCA 1647

The motion seeking a DPP investigation and adjournment was dismissed because the Court lacked power to compel the DPP to investigate or disclose results, and in any event such a process was not a necessary or appropriate precondition to the appeal. The disqualification application was refused because the applicant did not establish lack of instructions, any relevant conflict of interest, any misuse of confidential information, or any basis to go behind the respondents' filed appearance and affidavit of authority.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dismissal of Application to Set Aside a Bankruptcy Notice / Interlocutory Motions Before Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
The applicant's notice of motion seeking orders concerning the Director of Public Prosecutions was dismissed; the application to disqualify the respondents' solicitors and counsel was refused; costs of the day were ordered to be costs of the third, fourth and fifth respondents in the cause.
Legal Topics
['bankruptcy Notice' 'director of Public Prosecutions Investigation' 'adjournment of Appeal' 'disqualification of Solicitors and Counsel' 'conflict of Interest' 'instructions to Solicitors']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'legal Profession'] ['bankruptcy Notice' 'director of Public Prosecutions Investigation' 'adjournment of Appeal' 'disqualification of Solicitors and Counsel' 'conflict of Interest' 'instructions to Solicitors']

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

Appeal From Dismissal of Application to Set Aside a Bankruptcy Notice / Interlocutory Motions Before Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had power to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Commonwealth to investigate alleged contraventions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and provide the results to the applicant.' 'Whether the appeal should be adjourned until the Director of Public Prosecutions investigated and the applicant considered the results.' "Whether the respondents' solicitors and counsel should be disqualified from acting on the appeal because of alleged lack of instructions, prior acting for the applicant, prior acting against respondents, or issues about authority to give instructions."]

Ratio Decidendi

The motion seeking a DPP investigation and adjournment was dismissed because the Court lacked power to compel the DPP to investigate or disclose results, and in any event such a process was not a necessary or appropriate precondition to the appeal. The disqualification application was refused because the applicant did not establish lack of instructions, any relevant conflict of interest, any misuse of confidential information, or any basis to go behind the respondents' filed appearance and affidavit of authority.

Court Disposition

The applicant's notice of motion seeking orders concerning the Director of Public Prosecutions was dismissed; the application to disqualify the respondents' solicitors and counsel was refused; costs of the day were ordered to be costs of the third, fourth and fifth respondents in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion of 27 November 1998 is dismissed.' 'The order sought disqualifying the solicitors for the respondents from appearing for the respondents on the appeal is not made.' 'The costs of today be the costs of the respondents Tadeusz Riebach, Peter Georgopolos and Electro Research International Pty Ltd...