FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Frigger v Trenfield (Application to Adjourn Final Hearing) [2025] FCA 71
File number: WAD 128 of 2023 Judgment of: COLVIN J Date of judgment: 6 February 2025 Date of publication of reasons: 12 February 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - claim that employed trustee in bankruptcy should be removed from office by reason of arrangements with employer concerning administration of bankrupt estates - whether employer of respondent should be joined as second respondent - whether applicants should have leave to further amend statement of claim - whether refusal of subpoena requests should be reconsidered - whether trial should be vacated - consideration of proposed additions to statement of claim - consideration of relevance of subpoena documents - consideration of custodial restrictions on the first applicant affecting the applicants' ability as litigants in person to conduct trial - trial vacated but application otherwise dismissed - costs to be paid by applicants Cases cited: Frigger v Trenfield (Application to Amend) [2024] FCA 508 Division: General Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 40 Date of hearing: 6 February 2025 Counsel for the Applicants: The applicants appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: Mr SD Majteles with Mr T Candy and Mr P Smith Solicitor for the Respondent: Johnson Winter Slattery ORDERS
WAD 128 of 2023 BETWEEN: ANGELA CECILIA THERESA FRIGGER
First Applicant
HARTMUT HUBERT JOSEF FRIGGER
Second Applicant
AND: KELLY-ANNE LAVINA TRENFIELD
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 FEBRUARY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The hearing dates for the trial of these proceedings to commence on 10 February 2025 be vacated.
2.The final hearing of all issues other than the quantum of any loss and damage or compensation be listed for 5 days commencing on 9 June 2025.
3.The interlocutory application dated 3 February 2025 be otherwise dismissed.
4.Costs of the interlocutory application and any costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the trial are to be paid by the applicants in any event.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COLVIN J:
Ms Kelly-Ann Trenfield is the trustee of the bankrupt estates of Mrs Angela Frigger and Mr Hartmut Frigger. They have been discharged from their bankruptcy, but the administration of their bankrupt estates is ongoing.
Ms Trenfield is an employee of FTI Consulting (Australia) Pty Ltd (FTI). For some time, work required to be undertaken in the course of the administration of the estates has been performed by Ms Trenfield as well as by other employees of FTI. The nature of the arrangements between Ms Trenfield and FTI concerning work that is required to be undertaken as part of the administration of the bankrupt estates, as well as the extent of the allocation of work as between Ms Trenfield and other employees of FTI, are matters that are in issue in these proceedings. However,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Frigger v Trenfield (Application to Adjourn Final Hearing) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 71
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the employer should be joined as a second respondent, whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their statement of claim, whether the refusal of subpoena requests should be reconsidered, and whether the trial should be vacated. The court also needed to assess the relevance of the documents sought through the subpoenas and consider the impact of custodial restrictions on the applicants' ability to conduct the trial as litigants in person.
The court found that while the proposed additions to the statement of claim had some relevance, they were not critical to the case's outcome. The court also determined that the subpoena documents were not relevant to the issues at hand. However, the custodial restrictions on the first applicant meant that the applicants could not adequately prepare for the trial, leading the court to vacate the hearing dates. Despite this, the court dismissed the application otherwise, ordering the applicants to pay the costs of the interlocutory application and any costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the trial.
The court's orders included vacating the hearing dates for the trial and listing the final hearing for 5 days starting on 9 June 2025. The interlocutory application was dismissed, and the applicants were to pay the costs of the application and any costs incurred due to the adjournment of the trial. The entry of orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The hearing dates for the trial of these proceedings to commence on 10 February 2025 be vacated.
2. The final hearing of all issues other than the quantum of any loss and damage or compensation be listed for 5 days commencing on 9 June 2025.
3. The interlocutory application dated 3 February 2025 be otherwise dismissed.
4. Costs of the interlocutory application and any costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the trial are to be paid by the applicants in any event.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.