Douglas Charles Russell v Polites Investments Pty Ltd

[2012] HCASL 140

DOUGLAS CHARLES RUSSELL

v

POLITES INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

[2012] HCASL 140
A15/2012

1. The applicant was a tenant of the respondent from 10 June 1999 to around 29 August 2000. The respondent evicted the applicant for breach of various covenants in the lease. The applicant then instituted several sets of proceedings against the respondent. Unsatisfied costs orders were made against the applicant. The respondent issued a bankruptcy notice which was not complied with. The respondent then filed a creditor's petition. A sequestration order was made against the applicant by Registrar Christie in the Federal Magistrates Court. Simpson FM dismissed the applicant's application for review. In his opinion there was no "other sufficient cause", within the meaning of s 52(2)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), why the sequestration order ought not to have been made.

2. The applicant proffered two grounds upon which he submitted that the Court should decline to make a sequestration order.  The first was that the Court should wait until the applicant's litigation against the respondent (including appeals) had been finalised by the courts hearing that litigation.  Simpson FM rejected that ground in view of the absence of merit in the applicant's litigation.  The second ground was that the respondent was using the bankruptcy proceedings to prevent the applicant from continuing with his litigation in other courts.  Simpson FM found no evidence that that was the respondent's purpose. 

3. The Federal Court of Australia (Flick J) dismissed an appeal by the applicant.  His Honour said that the applicant's repeated allegations of fraud and perjury were groundless.  His Honour shared Simpson FM's view of the other litigation.  Flick J also noted that the applicant had re-agitated issues already resolved against him, and had unmeritoriously failed to comply with court orders.  Finally, his Honour found that the bankruptcy proceedings were not an abuse of process.

   The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.

   The grounds stated in the applicant's draft Notice of Appeal are:

   "1In the Interest of Justist against a serious misscarriage of Justist

   2The Abuse of Process denying Appeals of Late New Evidence of Perjury of Respondents and other wrongs in the Supreme Court of South Australia

   3The Appellant Bankruptcy was corrupted by the Respondents fraud and perjury through all the Courts involved in the matter between the Parties".

4. The brief and unintelligible submissions in the applicant's Summary of Argument do not demonstrate that there is any prospect of success in an appeal on these grounds.

5. The application is dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
13 November 2012 V.M. Bell