Yap v Granich & Associates [2001] FCA 1735
Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised had already been determined in prior litigation, were barred by res judicata and estoppel, no new or fresh evidence of fraud was provided, and there was no sufficient doubt about the primary judge's decision to warrant reconsideration.
- Parties
- Applicant: Yap Cheng See; Respondent: Granich & Associates
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 November 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy Leave to Appeal Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Annulment of Sequestration Order, Leave to Appeal, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Yap Cheng See
Applicant
Granich & Associates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Leave to Appeal Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from interlocutory orders summarily dismissing application for annulment of sequestration order
- 2 Whether applicant raised a new matter justifying reconsideration of order
- 3 Whether prior litigation bars reconsideration of the fraud allegation
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised had already been determined in prior litigation, were barred by res judicata and estoppel, no new or fresh evidence of fraud was provided, and there was no sufficient doubt about the primary judge's decision to warrant reconsideration.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused
Orders
- Leave to appeal refused.
- Applicant pay the costs of the respondent of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment