Jahani v Qiu, in the matter of Ralan Property Services Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) (non-party application) [2026] FCA 1619 — Corporations & S 91 Of The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) — Barrister AI
Jahani v Qiu, in the matter of Ralan Property Services Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) (non-party application)
application by non-party creditor for leave to be heard or otherwise participate in proceeding
r 2.13 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth)
proposed reliance on findings made in other proceedings
Quick Take
1Under r 2.13 of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth), eligibility as a creditor or interested person to seek leave to be heard does not establish an entitlement to participate. The discretion is exercised to promote the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), having regard to the connection between the asserted interest and the issues, the assistance participation would provide, and its effect on the timely and proportionate conduct of the proceeding.
2Leave to be heard as a non-party does not dispense with the rules of evidence. Findings of fact made by QCAT in an administrative review proceeding remain within s 91(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and describing them as 'supporting context' does not avoid the prohibition. The legal reasoning, or the existence and legal effect of the orders, may raise different questions, but the person relying on the material must distinguish those uses from proof of the facts found.
3On the facts, leave was refused because the non-party identified no pleaded issue, evidentiary gap or permissible use for her material, and its receipt risked extending the dispute into collateral matters. Her condition that she face no risk of adverse costs also weighed against leave, given r 2.13(2) contemplates orders for additional costs caused by a non-party's participation.
