BDT Holdings Pty Ltd v Piscopo

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BDT Holdings Pty Ltd v Piscopo

[2009] FCA 151

BDT HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED v SAMUEL PISCOPO

NSD 528 of 2008

RARES J
20 FEBRUARY 2009
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 528 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: BDT HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
Applicant

AND: SAMUEL PISCOPO
Respondent

JUDGE:	RARES J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 FEBRUARY 2009
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Any requirement for the respondent, Samuel Piscopo, to discover documents under categories 7 and 8 served by the applicant, BDT Holdings Pty Ltd, in the notice of categories of documents to discover, dated 29 October 2008 be dispensed with.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the notice of motion filed on 3 December 2008.

3.The applicant file and serve a list of documents on 6 March 2009 and give inspection of the documents discovered in part 1 of schedule 1 simultaneously.

4.The applicant/cross respondent, file and serve a defence to cross claim on or before 6 March 2009.

5.The respondent/cross claimant, give inspection of documents discovered by him on or before 23 February 2009.

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

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 528 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: BDT HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
Applicant

AND: SAMUEL PISCOPO
Respondent

JUDGE:	RARES J
DATE:	20 FEBRUARY 2009
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT)

1. This is an application by the respondent trustee in bankruptcy, Samuel Piscopo, to dispense with an obligation to discover documents in categories 7 and 8 described in the applicant’s (BDT Holdings Pty Limited) list of categories of documents for discovery. Mr Piscopo rejected the proof of debt in the sum of $4,808,650 submitted by BDT in a decision he is alleged to have made on 3 December 2007 and in some way affirmed on 10 April 2008. BDT filed an application on 17 April 2008 seeking review of that decision. It relied on ss 104 and 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), among others. Section 104 provides that a creditor may apply to the court for review of a decision of the trustee under s 102(1) to reject a proof of debt. The Court may confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the trustee (s 104(2)). In addition, under s 178 a creditor or other person affected by an act, omission or decision of the trustee is given the right to apply to the court and for the court to make such order in the matter as it thinks just and equitable.

2. The proceedings are the latest in a long line of fiercely contested litigation between the debtor, Terry Hill, and now his trustee, on the one hand, and Mr Hill’s former associates,…