Fletcher v George and Ors (No.10)
[2010] FMCA 544
•16 July 2010
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| FLETCHER v GEORGE & ORS (No.10) | [2010] FMCA 544 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Bankrupt’s opposition to an amended application in a case that is one day later than provided by the rules. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | WILLIAM JOHN FLETCHER AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LAUREN KAY GEORGE (A BANKRUPT) |
| First Respondent: | LAUREN KAY GEORGE |
| Second Respondent: | DR PETER IRONSIDE PTY LTD |
| Third Respondent: | DR PETER DOUGLAS IRONSIDE |
| Fourth Respondent: | NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED |
| Fifth Respondent: | SUSAN WILSON |
| File Number: | BRG 709 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Burnett FM |
| Hearing date: | 16 July 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 16 July 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Brisbane |
| Delivered on: | 16 July 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr C.D. Coulsen |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Holman Webb |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | The First Respondent appeared on her own behalf |
| Solicitors for Second Respondent: | Bell Dixon Butler Lawyers |
| Solicitors for the Third Respondent: | Bell Dixon Butler Lawyers |
| Solicitors for the Fourth Respondent: | Thynne & Macartney |
| Solicitors for the Fifth Respondent: | Lewis & McNamara Solicitors |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
BRG 709 of 2008
| WILLIAM JOHN FLETCHER AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LAUREN KAY GEORGE (A BANKRUPT) |
Applicant
And
| LAUREN KAY GEORGE (A BANKRUPT) |
First Respondent
| DR PETER IRONSIDE PTY LTD |
Second Respondent
| DR PETER DOUGLAS IRONSIDE |
Third Respondent
| NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED |
Fourth Respondent
| SUSAN WILSON |
Fifth Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
The bankrupt opposes the Trustee seeking leave to proceed to hear an amended application for interlocutory orders filed 15 July 2010. That is one day later than provided by the rules.
So far as formal compliance with the rules is concerned, the date of the application is such that no prejudice would be occasioned to the bankrupt by me hearing the application today in terms of the relief sought. So far as formal advice is concerned, she has had notice before today of the nature of the application that was intended.
The bankrupt claims in support of her application that she requires time to file affidavits and submissions in opposition to the Trustee’s application to orally examine her. Given the nature of the relief sought, I do not see there is anything to be added by way of submissions and affidavits that might be filed by the applicant. The Full Court has already addressed the issue of the house, the car, tools of trade, protected moneys and other issues. I do not intend to take the matters any further. So far as contact with the Chief Federal Magistrate is concerned, it has no bearing upon my conduct of these proceedings.
The application is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Burnett FM
Date: 2 August 2010
0
0
1