Judge says failures to communicate, appear at hearings, explain delays are ‘highly regrettable’
Highlighting the overarching duty that lawyers owe to the court, the Australian Federal Court described the failures of the respondent’s legal representatives to communicate sufficiently, to explain delays, and to appear at hearings as “highly regrettable” and “unfortunate.”
By orders made on 26 May 2026, the registrar sequestered the estate of the respondent in Toyota Finance Australia Pty Ltd v Hanna [2026] FCA 1555 under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The deemed date of bankruptcy was 17 December 2025, 21 days after the service of a bankruptcy notice.
Via an interim application filed on 11 June 2026, the respondent sought to dismiss the creditor’s petition and to set aside the registrar’s sequestration order.
Through orders made on 16 July 2026, the Federal Court imposed a timetable for filing evidence and submissions. The orders required the respondent to file supporting evidence and submissions by 31 July 2026.
After a variation on 11 August 2026, the revised orders required the respondent to file and serve such evidence by 14 August 2026.
The court noted that the respondent failed to timely file supporting evidence, to submit the requested affidavit by 29 September 2026 to explain the delay, and to attend to the filing of her evidence in compliance with court orders and directions.
On 13 October 2026, the court directed an associate to inform the parties about the listing of this matter for case management on 19 October 2026. The respondent did not respond to the associate’s email.
As requested by the judge, the associate called the respondent’s solicitors to confirm their knowledge of the case management hearing. The associate left a message when the call went to voicemail.
On 19 October 2026, the court conducted a case management hearing. The respondent made no appearance.
Via an oral application, the applicant’s representative sought to dismiss this proceeding under r 5.23(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
Under r 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules, the Federal Court dismissed the respondent’s interim application dated 11 June 2026. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant’s interim application costs.
The Federal Court ruled that:
Here are some other recent decisions by the Federal Court of Australia.
In a complex corporate insolvency proceeding where the plaintiffs repeatedly revised artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted summaries of thousands of documents and served them close to the scheduled hearing date, the court issued a 25 September 2026 decision addressing the cost consequences of vacating the hearing.
On 24 September 2026, the court granted leave for a liquidator appointed by the Supreme Court of Victoria to serve a summons for examination, certain orders, and copies of orders on an Australian citizen in the US via personal service.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest restructuring and insolvency news on the main page!
