Gao v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy & Ors

[2005] HCATrans 1003

[2005] HCATrans 1003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  Nos M220 of 2002, M230 of 2002 and
  M127 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

PENG YUAN GAO

Applicant

and

THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF YU JING ZHU

Respondent

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M15 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

PENG YUAN GAO

Applicant

and

YU JING ZHU

First Respondent

THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF YU JING ZHU

Second Respondent

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M105 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

PENG YUAN GAO

Applicant

and

JOHN O’BRIEN AND ASSOCIATES

Respondent

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M106 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

PENG YUAN GAO

Applicant

and

YAN ZHANG

Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2005, AT 9.39 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HAYNE J:   The first four of these six applications for special leave brought by Peng Yuan Gao (Mr Gao) concern claims Mr Gao has made in the bankruptcy of Yu Jing Zhu (Ms Zhu).  In 2001, Mr Gao obtained a judgment against Ms Zhu in the Supreme Court of Victoria.  In April 2002, Ms Zhu became bankrupt on her own petition.

In the first application, Matter No M220/2002, Mr Gao seeks special leave to appeal against orders of a single judge of the Federal Court dismissing Mr Gao’s appeal against orders made in the Federal Magistrates Court.  A Federal Magistrate had dismissed Mr Gao’s application to join the respondent Official Trustee as defendant to the Supreme Court proceedings and to make further orders under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions of the courts below.  This application should be dismissed with costs.

By the second application, Matter No M230/2002, Mr Gao seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of Victoria refusing him leave to appeal.  Mr Gao had sought to appeal against orders of a single judge of the Supreme Court refusing Mr Gao’s application for joinder of the Official Trustee as a party to the Supreme Court proceedings against Ms Zhu.

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions of the courts below.  This application should be dismissed with costs.

By the third application, Matter No M127/2003, Mr Gao seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court again refusing him leave to appeal.  In this case Mr Gao sought leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court dismissing proceedings brought by Mr Gao to which he sought to have the Commonwealth Bank joined as a respondent.  By those proceedings, brought against the Official Receiver, Mr Gao alleged improper administration of the estate of Ms Zhu.

Again, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions of the courts below.  This application too should be dismissed with costs.

The fourth application, Matter No M15/2004, concerns orders made by the Court of Appeal of Victoria dismissing an application Mr Gao made seeking leave to appeal against interlocutory orders made by a single judge of the Supreme Court.  Mr Gao demonstrates no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions of the courts below.  This application should be dismissed with costs.

The fifth application, Matter No M105/2005, concerns an appeal which Mr Gao instituted in the Court of Appeal of Victoria but which, by operation of the Rules of that Court, was deemed abandoned.  Mr Gao made application to the Court of Appeal for a direction that the index for the appeal book be settled.  The appeal being deemed abandoned before the summons was returnable, the Court made no order.  A form of order was taken out that recorded that “By reason of the deemed abandonment of the appeal the Court made no order”.

Mr Gao being unrepresented, his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. No order having been made by the Court of Appeal there is no subject‑matter for the application for special leave.

This application should be dismissed.

The final application, Matter No M106/2005, seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of Victoria dismissing an application for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders of a single judge of the Supreme Court.

Again, Mr Gao being unrepresented, this application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The application concerns orders dealing with matters of practice and procedure.  It is not arguable that the interests of justice either generally or in the particular case would warrant a grant of special leave.  The application should be dismissed.

Pursuant to the applicable rules we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal orders to the effect set out above.  I publish that disposition.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTERS WERE CONCLUDED