Yap v Granich & Associates [1999] FCA 1867

Yap v Granich & Associates [1999] FCA 1867

The judgment debt founding the bankruptcy notice was the costs judgment against the appellant after her unsuccessful professional negligence action against the respondent. The matters she sought to raise had already been canvassed and decided adversely to her, her appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court had been dismissed, and her High Court special leave application had been dismissed as entirely devoid of merit. Her allegations did not provide a basis to go behind the judgment or show that the sequestration order ought not to have been made. French J applied the correct principles and no appellable error was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court Dismissing a Motion to Review and Set Aside a Sequestration Order and Annul Bankruptcy
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['sequestration Order' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'going Behind Judgment Debt' "creditor's Petition" 'bankruptcy Notice' 'costs Judgment']
['bankruptcy' 'appeals' 'civil Procedure'] ['sequestration Order' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'going Behind Judgment Debt' "creditor's Petition" 'bankruptcy Notice' 'costs Judgment']

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

Bankruptcy Appeal / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court Dismissing a Motion to Review and Set Aside a Sequestration Order and Annul Bankruptcy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should go behind the judgment debt upon which the bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition were based." 'Whether the sequestration order ought not to have been made under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).' "Whether the appellant's allegations of negligence, fraud, misrepresentation and omitted cheques disclosed appellable error in the decision of French J."]

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment debt founding the bankruptcy notice was the costs judgment against the appellant after her unsuccessful professional negligence action against the respondent. The matters she sought to raise had already been canvassed and decided adversely to her, her appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court had been dismissed, and her High Court special leave application had been dismissed as entirely devoid of merit. Her allegations did not provide a basis to go behind the judgment or show that the sequestration order ought not to have been made. French J applied the correct principles and no appellable error was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed with costs.']