Badcock v Ambrose (Trustee) in the matter of Badcock (Bankrupt)

[2004] FCA 690

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Badcock v Ambrose (Trustee) in the matter of Badcock (Bankrupt)
[2004] FCA 690

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment – where granting adjournment would be inconsistent with previous orders of Court.

ROBERT JOHN BADCOCK v COLIN LOUIS AMBROSE (AS TRUSTEE IN THE ESTATE OF ROBERT JOHN BADCOCK A BANKRUPT)

S 48 of 2004

LANDER J
25 MAY 2004
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 48 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	ROBERT JOHN BADCOCK APPLICANT
AND:	COLIN LOUIS AMBROSE (TRUSTEE) RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 MAY 2004
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for an adjournment is refused.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 48 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	ROBERT JOHN BADCOCK APPLICANT
AND:	COLIN LOUIS AMBROSE (TRUSTEE) RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	LANDER J
DATE:	25 MAY 2004
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 27 April 2004, I made an order that an examination, under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act), which was then proceeding before the Registrar of the Court, proceed before me.  That followed two applications by the examinee for an adjournment, both of which were rejected by the Registrar, which decisions I affirmed on review.  On the second occasion, I ordered that the examination continue before me.

2. The examination was adjourned from 27 April 2004 until today.  The reason for the adjournment was so that the examinee could produce documents referred to in the summons which had been issued under s 81 of the Act and so that the trustee could consider those documents and determine whether or not any further examination was required.

3. When the matter resumed before me this afternoon, the examinee applied for leave to appeal from my decision made on 27 April 2004 refusing his application for an adjournment.  I heard that application and, for reasons given at that time, I refused the application for leave to appeal.  The examinee has now sought the further adjournment of the examination so that he can apply to the Full Court for, I think it to be, leave to appeal from my decision made on 27 April 2004 or, alternatively, it might be leave to appeal from my decision refusing leave to appeal today.

4. If I were to grant the adjournment upon that ground, it would mean again the reversal of the order effectively refusing leave to appeal.  On the application for leave to appeal, I offered the opinion that nothing had been put before me which could lead me to think that the decision refusing the adjournment on 27 April 2004 was wrong.  That is still my opinion.  Because that is my opinion, the prospects of the examinee obtaining leave to appeal from the Full Court, even apart from the obvious procedural hurdles in his way, are, in my opinion, non-existent.  In those circumstances, I refuse the application for an adjournment.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lander.

Associate:

Dated:             3 June 2004

Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	G Gretsas
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Gretsas Chrzaszcz
Date of Hearing:	25 May 2004
Date of Judgment:	25 May 2004