Gold, Isobel Patricia v The Proprietors - Units Plan No 52

[1997] FCA 1446

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  DISTRICT REGISTRY	AG 97 of 1997

BETWEEN:

PATRICIA ISOBEL GOLD
BANKRUPT

APPLICANT

AND:

THE PROPRIETORS - UNITS PLAN NO 52

FIRST RESPONDENT

MR BARRY A TAYLOR
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):

HILL J

DATE:

5 DECEMBER 1997

PLACE:

SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

There is before me this morning an application by Mrs Gold in which she seeks orders that there be an interim hearing of a notice of motion which is already set down for hearing on 3 February 1998 for an injunction or a stay of proceedings and execution in respect of a notice to vacate issued by Mr Taylor, the trustee in her bankruptcy.  Although that is in form the application Mrs Gold seeks, in substance what she seeks from me this morning is a stay of the notice to vacate which has been served upon her and which falls to be complied with today.

On 6 November last Mrs Gold sought before Finn J a stay or otherwise an extension of the writ of possession to a later date to enable her to appeal or seek leave to appeal to the High Court form a decision of the Full Court of this Court on 24 October this year.

The transcript of the proceedings on that day indicate that Finn J dismissed the application with costs. The present application is virtually a re-run of what happened on 5 November.

Mrs Gold has filed an affidavit in the present proceedings in which, among other things, she says that it would be inconvenient for her and “to her utter disadvantage” in her preparations to deal with the High Court proceedings if she were now disturbed in her possession.  She says in her affidavit and has repeated in oral submissions that from start to finish the whole proceedings in which she has participated have been a mistake and that, although until today the first respondent has been successful, that success has been in respect of false claims.  She alleges that never have the real merits of the case been exposed.  Had they been exposed she would, she says, have been successful.

It is not particularly relevant, but I note that there have been proceedings commenced in this Court to have Mrs Gold declared a vexatious litigant.  She has, I know, brought many proceedings and has been at least a party to many others, all in respect of the one matter in respect of which I think it is not unfair to say she has an obsession.  I asked Mrs Gold to indicate to me to what extent, if any, there had been a change in circumstances since the application she brought before Finn J.  Apart from referring me to her affidavit, she is unable to indicate what changes there have been and the reality of the matter is that there are none and it is hard to do otherwise than to conclude that the present application is, in truth, an abuse of process, an attempt to re-litigate that which has already been decided, perhaps with the hope that another judge might take a different view of the matter.

There is nothing in the affidavit material or in anything that I have read which suggests that a stay in the circumstances ought to be granted.  A full Court of this Court unanimously dismissed her appeal without calling upon the other side that unless the High Court were to grant leave and allow her appeal, the trustee in bankruptcy has been validly appointed and is entitled to possession.  There is no reason in the circumstances why that right to possession should be stayed.

In these circumstances, I would dismiss the application.

I should say that there is, once the question of stay disappears, no reason why there should be an earlier hearing than that initially scheduled on 3 February 1998.  Mrs Gold should bear the costs of the application.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hill

Associate:

Dated:            16 December 1997

The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the First Respondent:	M D Flint
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Clayton Utz
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	G P Walker
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Hill & Rummery
Date of Hearing:	5 December 1997
Date of Judgment:	5 December 1997