Arnold v Rockliff

[2012] FMCA 697

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ARNOLD v ROCKLIFF & ORS [2012] FMCA 697

BANKRUPTCY – Application for review of decision of Registrar – adjournment – where matter previously adjourned for medical reasons – where applicant in custody – where no indication of release date – whether to adjourn – application dismissed for non-appearance.

Bankruptcy Act 1966, s.153B

Applicant: ALEX ARNOLD (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS IKHAN AKCA)

First Respondent: STEPHEN JOHN ROCKLIFF

Second Respondent: NICOLE DEANNE ROCKLIFF

Third Respondent: MICHELLE RENEE ROCKLIFF

File Number: SYG 579 of 2012

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 6 August 2012

Date of Last Submission: 6 August 2012

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 6 August 2012

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No Appearance

Solicitors for the Respondent: Rockliffs

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed for non appearance pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 579 of 2012

ALEX ARNOLD (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS IKHAN AKCA)

Applicant

And

STEPHEN JOHN ROCKLIFF

First Respondent

NICOLE DEANNE ROCKLIFF

Second Respondent

MICHELLE RENEE ROCKLIFF

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the applicant filed an application for a review of a decision of a registrar to make a sequestration order against him on 10 July 2012.  It would appear that the applicant filed a notice of objection and appeared at the hearing.  The matter had been adjourned on several occasions as a result of the production by the applicant of medical certificates.  The applicant now seeks the matter be adjourned again because he is currently in custody.

2. In a letter dated 3 August 2012 from the applicant he refers to the delivery of certain medical certificates to the court and the fact that his father had had a heart attack.  He makes reference to the proceedings in the local court and states:

   “In my absence the evidence provided and filed can be exercised if further evidence is required I would beg his or her Worship to apply a stay in these matters until I can get a fair go in this somewhat awkward situation.

   I ask for a chance to plea [sic] my case in a fair and indiscriminate fashion as I am and I have been clearly disputing the costs advanced by Rockliffs Solicitors. 

   I would greatly appreciate a chance to defend my self in due course. A release date is not available as yet given a generous time frame.  I will notify the Magistrates Court of my release when sentenced.”

3. Unfortunately, the applicant does not give us any indication as to when he might expect to be released. The court cannot hold these matters over indefinitely. It notes that it may be possible for the applicant to bring proceedings for an annulment of his bankruptcy under section 153B of the Bankruptcy Act even from prison, but he would probably need to start by setting aside the order of the local court of New South Wales that was made on 27 September 2011 and entered on 29 November 2011.

4. If the applicant is successful in relation to some of these matters then the court will doubtless take into account the fact that he did make this application for review at an early stage when considering the question of costs and in particular the trustee’s costs.  The application is dismissed due to the non-appearance of the applicant.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Date:  10 August 2012