Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Francis v Eggleston Mitchell Lawyers Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 564 Citation: Francis v Eggleston Mitchell Lawyers Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 564
Parties: LOUISE FRANCIS v EGGLESTON MITCHELL LAWYERS PTY LTD, GESS MICHAEL RAMBALDI and ANDREW REGINALD YEO
File number: VID 5 of 2013
Judge: MARSHALL J
Date of judgment: 7 June 2013
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – application to annul – whether sequestration order "ought not to have been made" – whether first respondent a creditor of the applicant – whether creditor's petition based on a final order – solvency – discretion not to annul – relevant considerations – annulment refused. EVIDENCE – leave granted for first respondent to re-open its case to admit further evidence located after judgment reserved – use of evidence limited.
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 40(1)(g), 40(3)(d), 153B(1) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 64, 69 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic)
Cases cited: Boles v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2001) 183 ALR 239 Bulic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited [2007] FCA 307 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Horvath (Junior) (1999) 161 ALR 441 Francis v Eggleston Mitchell Lawyers [2011] FMCA 805 Francis v Eggleston Mitchell Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 485 Re Williams (1968) 13 FLR 10 Rigg v Baker (2006) 155 FCR 531 Sandell v Porter (1966) 115 CLR 666 Scott v Evia Pty Ltd [2008] VSC 324 Stankiewicz v Plata [2000] FCA 1185
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate