Dudzinski v Kellow [2002] FCAFC 402

Dudzinski v Kellow [2002] FCAFC 402

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide evidence justifying bias and had not commenced valid proceedings to set aside the relevant judgment for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act extension provision.

Parties
Appellant: Waldemar Dudzinski; First Respondent: Aynsley Kellow; Second Respondent: Roy Rickson; Third Respondent: Errol Stock; Fourth Respondent: Bill Hogarth; Fifth Respondent: Cordia Chu; Sixth Respondent: Kees Hulsman; Seventh Respondent: Lyn Holman; Eighth Respondent: Colin McAndrew; Ninth Respondent: John Scott; Tenth Respondent: Griffith University
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Notice, Extension of Time, Bias Allegations
Bankruptcy Bankruptcy Notice Extension of Time Bias Allegations

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waldemar Dudzinski

Appellant

Aynsley Kellow

First Respondent

Roy Rickson

Second Respondent

Errol Stock

Third Respondent

Bill Hogarth

Fourth Respondent

Cordia Chu

Fifth Respondent

Kees Hulsman

Sixth Respondent

Lyn Holman

Seventh Respondent

Colin McAndrew

Eighth Respondent

John Scott

Ninth Respondent

Griffith University

Tenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bankruptcy notice should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether there should be an extension of time to comply with the bankruptcy notice
  3. 3 Whether there was judicial bias

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide evidence justifying bias and had not commenced valid proceedings to set aside the relevant judgment for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act extension provision.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.