Hambleton (Trustee), in the Matter of Quinn-Watson (Bankrupt) v Quinn-Watson

[2021] FCCA 128

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hambleton (Trustee), in the Matter of Quinn-Watson (Bankrupt) v Quinn-Watson [2021] FCCA 128

File number(s):	BRG 608 of 2020
Judgment of:	JUDGE EGAN
Date of judgment:	27 January 2021
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether leave is required for the filing of an Amended Statement of Claim – matter set down for interlocutory hearing.
Number of paragraphs:	5
Date of last submission/s:	27 January 2021
Date of hearing:	27 January 2021
Place:	Brisbane
Counsel for the First Applicant:	Mr McEniery, Solicitor of Rose Litigation
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Self-represented
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Self-represented

ORDERS

BRG 608 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF DAVID BRYAN QUINN-WATSON, BANKRUPT

BETWEEN:

DAVID JAMES HAMBLETON AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF DAVID BRYAN QUINN-WATSON (A BANKRUPT)

Applicant

AND:

JOSHUA QUINN-WATSON

First Respondent

CHARLOTTE QUINN-WATSON

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE EGAN
DATE OF ORDER:	27 JANUARY 2021

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.The First Respondent and the Second Respondent shall, by 4.00pm on 29 January 2021, file and serve a set of written submissions setting out:

(a)Why it was asserted by them that the leave of the Court was required for the filing of the Amended Statement of Claim; and

(b)The legal basis or bases for any submission made by them as to whether the Applicant may or may not rely upon the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 20 January 2021.

2.The Applicant shall file written submissions in response to the submissions filed on behalf of the First Respondent and the Second Respondent on or before 4.00pm on 3 February 2021.

3.The matter be listed for interlocutory hearing on 8 March 2021 at 9.45 am (AEST).

4.Each party have liberty to apply on the giving of one (1) days’ notice, each to the other.

5.The costs of and incidental to today’s appearance be reserved.

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE EGAN

1. In this matter the applicant seeks to rely upon an amended statement of claim filed on 20 January 2021.

2. Mr Quinn-Watson - appearing on his own behalf, but making submissions on behalf of himself and the second respondent, Dr Quinn-Watson – had submitted that the applicant had no right to file the amended statement of claim without the leave of the court.

3. No written submissions have been filed by either party as to why the filing of an amended statement of claim ought not to have been the subject of either acceptance for filing by the registry, or the grant of leave for filing nunc pro tunc in such circumstances.

4. As Mr Quinn-Watson has raised the issue, the court is of the view that submissions should first be filed by and on behalf of the first respondent and the second respondent concerning the propriety of the filing, and acceptance by the registry, of the amended statement of claim. The applicant should then have an opportunity to respond to those submissions. The matter should be adjourned for an interlocutory hearing on the issue.

5. It is so ordered.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

Associate:

Dated:       4 February 2021