Oates v Matrix Group Ltd (in liquidation) (Trustee) [2017] FCA 809

Oates v Matrix Group Ltd (in liquidation) (Trustee) [2017] FCA 809

The orders of the primary judge were interlocutory as they did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties; the applicant required leave to appeal and did not meet the threshold showing sufficient doubt about the primary judge's decision or a risk of substantial injustice if leave were refused.

Parties
Applicant: Tom Oates; First Respondent: Matrix Group Limited (in liquidation) ACN 061 549 371 as trustee for the Matrix Finance Group Unit Trust; Second Respondent: Scott Darren Pascoe in his capacity as liquidator of Matrix Group Limited (in liquidation) as trustee for the Matrix Finance Group Unit Trust; Third Respondent: The partners of Kemp Strang
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Appellate, Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision, Nature of Interlocutory Versus Final Orders, Corporations – Winding Up, Declaratory Relief
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Decision Nature of Interlocutory Versus Final Orders Corporations – Winding Up Declaratory Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom Oates

Applicant

Matrix Group Limited (in liquidation) ACN 061 549 371 as trustee for the Matrix Finance Group Unit Trust

First Respondent

Scott Darren Pascoe in his capacity as liquidator of Matrix Group Limited (in liquidation) as trustee for the Matrix Finance Group Unit Trust

Second Respondent

The partners of Kemp Strang

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Appellate, Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge's judgment and order were interlocutory or final in nature and whether leave to appeal was required
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time to file for leave to appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The orders of the primary judge were interlocutory as they did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties; the applicant required leave to appeal and did not meet the threshold showing sufficient doubt about the primary judge's decision or a risk of substantial injustice if leave were refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The amended application for an extension of time and leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the first and second respondents' costs as agreed or taxed.