FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Astram Financial Services Pty Limited v Bank of Queensland Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 1508

Citation:

Astram Financial Services Pty Limited v Bank of Queensland Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 1508

Appeal from:

Astram Financial Services Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2010] FCA 1010

Parties:

ASTRAM FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD, LEICESTER DENIS RAMSEY and KIM SUE-ELLEN RAMSEY v BANK OF QUEENSLAND LTD

File number(s):

NSD 1346 of 2010

Judge:

EMMETT J

Date of judgment:

10 December 2010

Date of hearing:

10 December 2010

Place:

Sydney

Division:

GENERAL DIVISION

Category:

No catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

2

Counsel for the Appellants:

J.A. Loxton

Solicitor for the Appellants:

Mulally Mylott Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondents:

S. Couper QC and J. Gooley

Solicitor for the Respondents:

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1346 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

ASTRAM FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED

First Appellant

LEICESTER DENIS RAMSEY

Second Appellant

KIM SUE-ELLEN RAMSEY

Third Appellant

AND:

BANK OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED

Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 DECEMBER 2010

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The appeal be dismissed.

2.    The appellants pay the costs of the respondent.

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

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1346 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

ASTRAM FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED

First Appellant

LEICESTER DENIS RAMSEY

Second Appellant

KIM SUE-ELLEN RAMSEY

Third Appellant

AND:

BANK OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED

Respondent

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

10 DECEMBER 2010

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1    On 17 November 2010, the Court directed the appellants to provide security for the costs of the respondent and directed that the appeal be stayed pending the provision of security. The Court also ordered that the notice of appeal of 11 October 2010 be struck out on the basis that it disclosed no viable ground of appeal. The appellants were granted leave to file and serve a further notice of appeal no later than 8 December 2010. No such further notice of appeal has been filed.

2    When the matter was called on again today for directions, counsel for the appellants indicated that they are not in a position to provide the security directed on 17 November 2010. Nor have they been able to formulate any grounds of appeal that would indicate that there is any prospect of the appeal succeeding. In those circumstances, the respondent has moved for summary dismissal of the appeal. While that order is not consented to by the appellants, the appellants did not wish to advance any argument in opposition. In the circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate that the appeal be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:    31 January 2011