BANKRUPTCY – appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (then the Federal Circuit Court of Australia) following review of a decision made by a registrar to make a sequestration order against the estate of the appellant – where review is a hearing de novo – whether primary judge erred in finding that the Federal Circuit Court’s jurisdiction was invoked under s 43 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – the proper construction of s 43(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act – whether subss 43(1)(b)(i) to (iii) of the Bankruptcy Act are to be read cumulatively and not alternatively – whether Re Mendonca; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 15 FLR 256 is plainly wrong – whether Re Vassis; Ex parte Leung (1986) 9 FCR 518 is plainly wrong – whether primary judge erred in analysis of evidence against rr 4.04, 4.05 and 4.06 of the Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth) – whether primary judge erred in finding that non-compliance with the Bankruptcy Rules was not of such a nature as to cause substantial injustice within the meaning of s 306(1) of the Bankruptcy Act – whether primary judge erred in finding that appellant was required to comply with r 2.04 and r 2.06 of the Bankruptcy Rules on a review application – appeal dismissed
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca1559
For more information, see the original judgement.
