Julene Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd

JULENE WINN
v
BLUEPRINT INSTANT PRINTING PTY LTD & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 41
M69/2011

These reasons should be read with those dismissing application M32 of 2011.
On 20 February 2009, the first respondent, Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd ("Blueprint"), obtained the issue of a second bankruptcy notice (VN 358 of 2009) based on the order for costs assessed by Master Bruce of the Supreme Court of Victoria on 9 November 2005.
The applicant challenged the second bankruptcy notice in proceedings before Phipps FM. Her challenge included the assertion that she had a counter-claim against Blueprint[1]. On 30 October 2009, Phipps FM dismissed the application. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court of Australia (Ryan J) against the dismissal.
[1]Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 41(7).
Blueprint filed a creditor's petition on 25 January 2010. The applicant filed a notice stating her grounds of opposition to the petition on 4 June 2010. The petition was listed for hearing before the Federal Magistrates Court on 26 November 2010 (Hartnett FM).
Hartnett FM noted that almost all of the applicant's grounds of opposition constituted an attack on the second bankruptcy notice and that these were challenges that had been resolved against the applicant by Phipps FM. A further ground of opposition amounted to an attack on the underlying costs order. That challenge had been ventilated unsuccessfully before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria[2]. Hartnett FM concluded that the order was a final one[3] and that there was no substance to the remaining grounds of opposition to the petition. She made a sequestration order against the estate of the applicant.
[2]Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd [2010] VSCA 35.
[3]Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 40(1)(g).
At the date of the making of the sequestration order, the applicant's appeal from the decision of Phipps FM had been heard but not determined. On 31 March 2011, Ryan J dismissed the appeal.
The applicant appealed to the Federal Court (Dodds-Streeton J) against the making of the sequestration order. Dodds-Streeton J noted that Ryan J had "comprehensively considered" and dismissed the many bases on which the challenge to the second bankruptcy notice had been advanced[4].
[4]Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd(No 2) [2011] FCA 723 at [48], citing Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 293.
Dodds-Streeton J dismissed the appeal against the sequestration order. She concluded[5]:
"The appeal was complex due to its numerous grounds, context of voluminous related or overlapping litigation, the unexplained omission of material documents from the appeal book, the appellant's reliance on unevidenced and disputed facts and the appellant's voluminous, repetitive submissions which in many respects insinuated rather than articulated her arguments. Despite the difficulties it raised, the appeal was, in my view, without merit. It largely constituted reiteration and reventilation in various guises of the appellant's previously litigated but unfounded complaints."
[5]Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd(No 2) [2011] FCA 723 at [169].
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court. Her many proposed grounds of challenge are largely misconceived attempts to challenge the validity of the second bankruptcy notice. None call into question the correctness of Dodds-Streeton J's reasons. If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success.
On 10 November 2011, the applicant was given leave to file her amended application by Hayne J. Subsequently, on 14 December 2011, his Honour gave the applicant an extension of time to file her amended application. His Honour ordered the costs of each application to be costs in the leave application.
The application is dismissed.
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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Julene Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd, the applicant, Julene Winn, was contesting a sequestration order made against her by the Federal Magistrates Court. The first respondent, Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd, had issued a second bankruptcy notice based on a costs order from the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant had challenged this notice and subsequently filed a creditor's petition against her. The legal issues before the court involved the validity of the second bankruptcy notice and the subsequent sequestration order. The court had to determine whether the notice was valid and if the sequestration order was correctly made. The applicant also raised multiple grounds of appeal against the dismissal of her challenge to the notice and the sequestration order.

The court examined the applicant's numerous grounds for appeal, noting that many of them were attempts to challenge the validity of the second bankruptcy notice, which had already been determined against her by lower courts. The Federal Court had dismissed the applicant's appeal, finding that it lacked merit and was largely a reiteration of previously litigated complaints. The High Court found that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospects of success. The court concluded that the applicant's grounds for appeal did not challenge the correctness of the Federal Court's reasons, and the appeal was largely misconceived.

The High Court dismissed the applicant's application for special leave to appeal. The court ordered that the costs of the application be paid by the applicant. The decision emphasised the importance of adhering to the legal processes and the finality of court orders. The applicant's attempts to challenge the validity of the second bankruptcy notice and the sequestration order were found to be without merit, reinforcing the importance of respecting the judgments of lower courts.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established