FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Maher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2010] FCA 1178 Citation: Maher v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2010] FCA 1178 Appeal from: Commonwealth Bank of Australia & Ors v Maher [2008] FMCA 1280 Parties: DENNIS MAHER v COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, GREG FIRTH, REGISTRAR OF TITLES and PAUL PATTISON File number(s): VID 695 of 2008 Judge: NORTH J Date of judgment: 25 October 2010 Date of hearing: 25 October 2010 Date of last submissions: 25 October 2010 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 6 Solicitor for the Appellant: Ms K Moorhouse Perks Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr G Dewar of Commonwealth Bank Legal Services IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 695 of 2008 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: DENNIS MAHER Appellant AND: COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA First Respondent GREG FIRTH Second Respondent REGISTRAR OF TITLES Third Respondent PAUL PATTISON Fourth Respondent JUDGE: NORTH J DATE OF ORDER: 25 OCTOBER 2010 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding. Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 695 of 2008 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: DENNIS MAHER Appellant AND: COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA First Respondent GREG FIRTH Second Respondent REGISTRAR OF TITLES Third Respondent PAUL PATTISON Fourth Respondent JUDGE: NORTH J DATE: 25 OCTOBER 2010 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The Court has brought on, of its own motion, the issue of whether this proceeding should be dismissed on the basis that the appellant has failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence: O 35A r 2(1)(f) and r 3(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 1976 (Cth). 2 On 15 August 2008, Federal Magistrate Phipps made a sequestration order against the appellant. On 20 January 2009, Registrar Burns made an order requiring the appellant to provide security for costs in relation to the appeal and staying the appeal until such security was provided or further order. 3 The appellant sought a review of the order for security for costs. On 16 December 2009, Bromberg J dismissed the application for review. Nothing at all has been done to prosecute the appeal since then. That is around 11 months of entire inaction. 4 On 14 October 2010, the Court wrote to the appellant indicating that the matter would be listed today to consider whether the appeal should be dismissed because the appellant has failed to prosecute the matter with due diligence. In response to that letter, the appellant was today represented by a solicitor. 5 The order for dismissal was resisted on the basis that the original judgment on which the bankruptcy notice was issued is a nullity. There was no evidence indicating why no action had been taken for 11 months, or why the security for costs had not been paid. The purpose of the order for payment of security for costs was to put a condition upon the appellant's ability to further prosecute the appeal. Today was not the occasion for the appeal to be argued. Nonetheless, that appears to have been the purpose of the submission of the solicitor for the appellant. 6 In view of the fact that nothing has been done by the appellant to prosecute the proceeding for 11 months, that no explanation has been offered today by his solicitor for this failure, and no application was made to adjourn the matter in order to provide such information, the grounds for dismissal are made out. Should the appellant wish to prosecute his arguments against the making of the sequestration order, he is, subject to questions of estoppel, Anshun estoppel and abuse of process, entitled to do so in some other action. However, his dilatoriness in prosecuting this appeal has reached a stage where it would be unconscionable for the matter to remain as an active appeal in the Court. Consequently, the order of the Court will be that the appeal is dismissed. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North. Associate: Dated: 25 October 2010