Majak v Byrnes & Anor [2022] NSWDC 222

Majak v Byrnes & Anor [2022] NSWDC 222

Ms Majak failed to establish that the summary judgment or cost orders were made irregularly, illegally, or against good faith under r 36.15 UCPR; her allegations related to the bankruptcy notice and subsequent proceedings were not relevant to the criteria under the rule. There was no evidentiary basis for finding intentional false statements under s 263A of the Bankruptcy Act; the Court declined to refer matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to allow amendment of the statement of claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Notice of Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment—application Heard After Summary Dismissal Orders and Costs Orders; Judgment on Motion
Outcome
Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dismissed; costs awarded to defendants; exhibits and MFIs to be returned.
Legal Topics
['setting Aside Judgment or Order' 'summary Judgment' 'abuse of Process' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['setting Aside Judgment or Order' 'summary Judgment' 'abuse of Process' 'costs']

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

Civil / Notice of Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment—application Heard After Summary Dismissal Orders and Costs Orders; Judgment on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether prior summary judgment and cost orders should be set aside under r 36.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) on grounds of irregularity, illegality, or bad faith' 'Whether the District Court should refer alleged false affidavit to the Director of Public Prosecutions under s 263A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Majak failed to establish that the summary judgment or cost orders were made irregularly, illegally, or against good faith under r 36.15 UCPR; her allegations related to the bankruptcy notice and subsequent proceedings were not relevant to the criteria under the rule. There was no evidentiary basis for finding intentional false statements under s 263A of the Bankruptcy Act; the Court declined to refer matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to allow amendment of the statement of claim.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dismissed; costs awarded to defendants; exhibits and MFIs to be returned.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 24 March 2022." 'Order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendants of and incidental to the Notice of Motion.' 'Direct that the Exhibits and MFIs be returned.']