Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Connolly v Mills Oakley Lawyers (a Partnership) [2019] FCA 950 Appeal from: Mills Oakley Lawyers (a Partnership) v Connolly [2018] FCCA 1647
File number: VID 849 of 2018
Judge: STEWARD J
Date of judgment: 19 June 2019
Catchwords: COSTS – appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia – whether primary judge erred in exercising discretion as to costs – where bankruptcy notice issued –where sum paid purportedly to settle the debt – where a creditor's petition was subsequently issued – whether the primary judge erred in law by not addressing a sufficiently articulated argument regarding accord and satisfaction – whether primary judge took into account an irrelevant consideration
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 44, 52 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Cases cited: Foakes v Beer (1884) 9 App Cas 605 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 JP Morgan Australia Ltd v Consolidated Minerals Ltd [2010] NSWSC 100 Kazar (Liquidator) v Kargarian (2011) 197 FCR 113 Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton (2017) 261 CLR 132 Tenser v Quigley [2016] FCAFC 178 Troutfarms Australia Pty Ltd v Perpetual Nominees Ltd [2013] VSC 228 Zreika v Royal [2019] FCAFC 82
Date of hearing: 17 April 2019
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
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