Julene Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd

[2012] HCASL 40

JULENE WINN
v
BLUEPRINT INSTANT PRINTING PTY LTD
[2012] HCASL 40
M32/2011

1. The applicant was unsuccessful in proceedings that she brought against the respondent, Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd ("Blueprint"), in the Supreme Court of Victoria.  Byrne J ordered the applicant to pay Blueprint's costs.  On 9 November 2005, those costs were taxed by Master Bruce in the amount of $16,639.20. 

2. On 25 June 2007, Blueprint obtained the issue of a bankruptcy notice (VN 1372 of 2007) based on non-payment of the taxed costs.  The applicant applied to set aside the bankruptcy notice.  The hearing of her application was stood over to 11 February 2008.  On that date, the applicant failed to appear and a Registrar dismissed the application.  Six months later, on 11 August 2008, the applicant filed an application claiming orders setting aside the dismissal and extending the time in which to review the Registrar's order.  The application was dismissed by Riley FM. 

3. The applicant purported to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Ryan J).  Ryan J treated the applicant's amended Notice of Appeal as an application for leave to appeal from Riley FM's interlocutory orders.  His Honour carried out a detailed review of the merits of each of the applicant's 28 grounds and concluded that she had "comprehensively failed to make out" any of them[1].  His Honour refused leave to appeal.  In so doing, he also took into account that Blueprint had abandoned any attempt to rely on the bankruptcy notice. 

   [1]Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 292 at [69].

4. The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from Ryan J's orders.  Her draft Notice of Appeal propounds 24 grounds of challenge.  Many contain unsupported factual assertions.  They do not engage with Ryan J's reasons.  There is a notable failure to address the inutility of the proceedings given that Blueprint does not rely on the bankruptcy notice. 

5. On 10 November 2011, Hayne J granted leave to file an amended application for special leave to appeal.  His Honour ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the leave application.  His Honour made a like order in proceedings M69 of 2011.  These reasons should be read with the reasons in those proceedings. 

6. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of Ryan J's judgment.  If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success.

7. The application is dismissed.

8. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

J.D. Heydon
29 February 2012 V.M. Bell