Sarkis v Moussa [2012] NSWCA 357

Sarkis v Moussa [2012] NSWCA 357

Mr Sarkis lacked locus standi following his bankruptcy as his trustees elected not to prosecute the appeal, and the action was either discontinued or abandoned under s 60 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). No error of principle or plainly incorrect decision was demonstrated in Beazley JA’s original dismissal. The application for review must therefore be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Application for review by Amended Notice of Motion filed 18 June 2012 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['application for Review Under S 46(4) Supreme Court Act 1970' 'error of Principle' 'standing in Bankruptcy' 'construction of Ss 58 and 60 Bankruptcy Act 1966' 'dismissal for Abuse of Process']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['application for Review Under S 46(4) Supreme Court Act 1970' 'error of Principle' 'standing in Bankruptcy' 'construction of Ss 58 and 60 Bankruptcy Act 1966' 'dismissal for Abuse of 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was an error of principle in dismissing the application for leave to appeal' 'Whether the construction of ss 58 and 60 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was plainly wrong' 'Whether the applicant had standing post-bankruptcy' 'Whether proceedings were an abuse of process']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Sarkis lacked locus standi following his bankruptcy as his trustees elected not to prosecute the appeal, and the action was either discontinued or abandoned under s 60 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). No error of principle or plainly incorrect decision was demonstrated in Beazley JA’s original dismissal. The application for review must therefore be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review by Amended Notice of Motion filed 18 June 2012 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Amended Notice of Motion filed 18 June 2012 is dismissed with costs.']