Nur Ainnabila Rosdi

On the court record

Nur Ainnabila Rosdi appears in the reported corpus as counsel in insolvency and administrative litigation, frequently in matters involving the Director General of Insolvency and the machinery of bankruptcy. A cluster of reported originating summonses turn on the requirement of sanction under section 38(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967: whether an undischarged bankrupt can institute proceedings without first obtaining the sanction of the Director General of Insolvency, whether sanction is required where the Director General is himself sued for an alleged failure in the discharge of his duties as Official Assignee, and the reported observation that legislative reform may be warranted to avoid undue hardship on undischarged bankrupts. She was also engaged in a matter to have a litigant declared vexatious under paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, founded on habitual and persistent legal proceedings brought without reasonable cause, again against the backdrop of the section 38(1)(a) sanction requirement.

Her reported work reaches judicial review and financial-services regulation. In one matter she appeared where an applicant sought leave to adduce a further affidavit as additional evidence in support of a judicial review, the respondent contesting the absence of any averment justifying it. At the Federal Court she was engaged in a matter concerning the failure to obtain the consent of the Minister of Finance under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996, and the effect of the repeal of that Act by the Financial Services Act 2013 — in particular whether the relevant statute is the one in force at the time of entry into the agreement or at the time of performance. Across these reported decisions her work centres on insolvency and the powers and protections of the Director General of Insolvency, alongside administrative and regulatory litigation, marking her as counsel at home in the procedural architecture of bankruptcy and public-body litigation.