Billinghurst, William McMinn v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

[1979] FCA 157

........ . )~q?

... :..l: ....

, . ... I. ........ .. L. "L..... "...W-.S*..".. .,W. r.. **.-.. I.*

r

1 Y.G. NO. 1 o.? 1979

AUSTPilr T I E ? # ZEALAND

---m- --p

l

I do not prcgasv to grant either 04 the tfro qFligati&s l

extend t h e time i r ~ c: rnat-ttctr of -Lk l s kind huf it cl~os, require

't;c bs aatj.sl:ied tnzL . I&- c e ~ i j i ; : . ~ tl. on of. ' 'the tl . . t%?:ich is now

cau s5 r ~ g 14r, Bi l l izzghcra t his ' dif licul2;y was d~le io acms . .

ovr?.rs.i.gIlt o:. Aif frcrli.ty ~ i . that It. 9 I ~ O U Z ~ be Xoir and rensovstbla

. .

to oxtend t;ir?.c . 09 couz-as vrllsC~ctr i t io f a i r or '

... .

.. ~ ' ~ 3 r , . ~ f ~ i + c r ~ ; 1 4 r. l* .- -I t!; c::t'f;~fl~rl. '<1?t~ $~!c.c? 't?J SO dapends 11.p~;i -i,h$ saturs

the very important factor that none of them re la t e t o a

matter of substance. He concedss that tha eebt of -the pet i t ioning crsdi tor wes substantial ly as alleged and.

that there are many othm debts running in to quite a	.	.
substant ia l sum of money.

His dre first, que . . stioi1 the

service of the peti t ion. That dbes: not go. t o a matter 'of

t

substance. The second matter i s that there was undue

l i b e r a l i t y an W e par t of the pr imHT Judge i n granting - . . . .

amend~ents	t o the petition.	In $he absence of some s t eps	l
l

\ . taken by We applicant a t we t r i a l t o seek further tiae t o ~

deal w i t h a~a t t e r s arising out of the amendments thc&.&~es . ..

l

not seem to me t o be a mattdr of wubatmce. The tk-ircl

ma-tter .Ls. t ha t ther'e was some e r r o r on W e par.% of t h e cow"i

.

i n l imitink Yae evidence ~ e b i r e d t o be leead. by M r . ~ i l l i n g h u r s t . . .

. i

That ceases t o be"amnttei o? substanbe i r i view o i the

. .

concetisfons which were made by M r . Billingburst.

Xn addition, none of .the growas stated t o jae appear

t o me t o give any probable chance ,of success to MI,-, I .

BilZinghurst on appeal. of course I m infZu~1;1~ed by

the iapt t ha t '1 real ly am not satisfied tha t there i s a

genuine desire t o proceed w i t h an appeal z t t h i ~ time.

If there had bean; I t h ink Llere wauld have been'evj.d6nce

I

of effor-ts m d a -to C C I ~ ~ ; S C ~ t l i s necsaaa~y l.egal advinaro,

e v i d e ~ c e which w o u l d have indicated riluch M I J ~ $ d c t e l r n i n a t i ~ ~ on

the p a r t of M r . B i i l i r ~ & ~ u , r s t t o s t advice than i s shown. It

legaX profession. To allov? tl?e time to go by only mkk1n.g

a -telophqne conve~sation	t o a sol ici tor who was qri holiciays	.
.' i

and could not be contac'ted, when there .are many other l

so l ic i to r s available in: t k l s *city, is evidence of . a per-

.	gunctory approach to the whole matter, which nsakes me feel
that t h i s whole proceeding i s quite a r t i f i c f a l and undertaken

merely in the hope of aoms indirect advantage of some kind.

Accordingly I ' dismiss the applications. .