Dixon v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank

[2015] FCCA 1785

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIXON v BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE BANK [2015] FCCA 1785

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Application for review of a Registrar’s decision – application dismissed.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for transfer of matter – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s.85

Applicant: THOMAS INGHAM DIXON

Respondent: BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE BANK

File Number: ADG 23 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 20 May 2015

Date of Last Submission: 20 May 2015

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 20 May 2015

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms J. Scott
Scott Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The Application to transfer the proceedings be dismissed.

2. The matter be fixed for hearing on 14 July 2015 at 10.15am in Sydney giving permission for Mr Dixon to appear by telephone or video link from Brisbane, if he seeks to, and the respondent by video from Adelaide.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADG 23 of 2015

THOMAS INGHAM DIXON

Applicant

And

BENDIGO AND ADELAIDE BANK

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant filed an application for review of a decision of the Registrar of the Court refusing to transfer the matter to Brisbane. The application was supported by an affidavit by Mr Dixon, the respondent to a creditor’s petition, together with medical evidence and assertions in relation to the risk of delay.

2. The creditor’s petition is one in which there has been filed an affidavit in support of opposition alleging that the property was sold by the bank at an undervalue, in breach of a provision of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) s.85.

3. The affidavit currently falls a long way short of identifying any proper basis upon which there could be said there was a breach of duty by the mortgagee.  The creditor clearly has a significant amount outstanding.  The applicant had the benefit of having orders made by the Registrar for a timetable for the filing of evidence. I propose to let that timetable remain in place and to have the matter brought back before the Court to be heard by video link at Sydney from Adelaide.  Mr Dixon can appear by video link from Brisbane or can appear by telephone.  The application for a review of the decision of the Registrar is dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  30 June 2015