George Town Council v NEILSEN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GEORGE TOWN COUNCIL v NEILSEN [2018] FCCA 74

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Judicial Review – costs order of Tribunal – whether constitutes a final or judgment order pursuant to s.42(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act1966 – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966, ss.40, (1)(g), 41

Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 (Tas), s.28(6)

Cases cited:

Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 (Tas)
Scott v Chantopoulous[2008] FCA 1914
Gibbs, ex parte Triscott (1995) 133 ALR 718 2 p721

Applicant: GEORGE TOWN COUNCIL

Respondent: GRAEME NEILSEN

File Number: LNG 76 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing date: 7 July 2017

Date of Last Submission: 12 December 2017

Delivered at: Launceston

Delivered on: 30 January 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Knott

Solicitors for the Applicant: Page Seager

The Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

1. That the Application for Review filed 20 April 2017 be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT LAUNCESTON

LNG 76 of 2016

GEORGE TOWN COUNCIL

Applicant

And

GRAEME NEILSEN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. This is an application for a review of a Registrar's decision made 13 April 2017 dismissing the applicant’s Creditors Petition filed against the respondent on 5 December 2016.

2. The Registrar dismissed the petition because:

   i)A costs order of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (Tas) (“the Tribunal”) made 10 July 2014 and later quantified by an amended Certificate of Taxation issued by the Tribunal on 8 September 2015 was unenforceable because the order was not registered with the Supreme Court of Tasmania pursuant to s.28(6) of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993 (Tas) (“RMPAT Act”); and

   ii)The order is not a final judgment or order in accordance with s.40 (1) (g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (“the Act”).

3. The Application for Review filed 20 April 2017 seeks the following orders:

   i)The sequestration order be made in the terms of the Creditors Petition ($60,628.14);

   ii)The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the sequestration order; and

   iii)The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the review application.

4. The applicant is represented by solicitors from whom I have received helpful written submissions.

5. The respondent before me is self-represented and argues that the Application for Review be dismissed.  The respondent has provided me with copious materials including substantial written submissions.  From the respondent’s materials and his oral submissions in Court, I understand that he firstly adopts the reasoning of the Registrar in arguing for dismissal of the application.  In the alternative he puts forward a ‘go behind’ argument or arguments.

Background

1. The respondent was involved in a planning dispute with the applicant Council regarding a redevelopment project.  The respondent is a former member of the George Town Council.  The respondent was unsuccessful in his application.  The Tribunal delivered reasons on 10 July 2014.  The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the appeal and evident in the reasons at [25] as follows:

   The order of the Tribunal is…