Ling, N. Trading as Australian TEFL Centre v Commonwealth of Australia

[1994] FCA 538

S8Y 9~

JUDGMENT No. ..... ,..,,,.J ,.,.,

BETWEEN:	POEL LING T r a u
AUSTRALIAN -

Applicant

Respondent

Q m w	Davled J.
W	7 July 1994
W:	Wncy

ONS FOR JUDGMENT

Thb is an application for the stay of a judgment given by Beaumont J., an appeal from which

wrr dismiaxd by the Full Court of this Court constituted by Gummow, Lee & Hill JJ. on 10 June

1994. 'h aum involved in the judgment are substantial and appear to amount to approximately $10

FEDERAL COURT OF

million in all. The applicant in this motion, Mr Noel Ling, has sought from the High Court time to

enable him to raise funds for the preparation of an application for speclal leave. Mr Ling seelcc a stay

unM b High Court haa bad an opportunity to deal with his p m p e d application for spedd leave.

'Ihc nutulal relied upon by Mr Ling's counsel has k n an affiQavlt sworn by his solicitor,

which has deposed to instrudioas received born Mr h g , and	wunsel's expmition of the likely
gro-	of appeaL

22 AUG 1994

Having regard to the sums involved in this matter, I would have expected there to be an

afedavit from Mr Ling himself. I think that I would not have granted any stay without knowing a good

deal more about Mr Ling's affiin than I presently know or without his making himself available for

mm-tion as to h& affairs. These affaii are somewhat complex, for Mr Ling has interests in

VUIIta.

With reapect to the proposed appeal, it is sufficient for me to say that I think that there are

insuf8dcnt pmspccu of s u m to grant a stay at this polnt of lime. I need say no more about the

p u n & other than that I would have come to the same conclusion as did the FuU Court on the

matten which have been raised in the proposed appeal.	It seems to me that there is no suffident
-n	at (his point to preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing the judgment, if there are any

aglets ysiast which it can be enforced, or from, in the first instance, serving a bankruptcy notice and

Bning an act of bankruptcy if the bankruptcy notice be not satisfied.

I muld expect that, if the application for special leave to the High Court has been progressed

with all proper urgency, (his Court,	in its bankruptcy jurisdiction, would be unlikely to make an order
for scquatntion until the High Court had given its ruling.	But of coune that WIU be a matter for the

judge bdore whom any petition for bankruptcy comes. At the moment, I have a much more Limited

task, and that fs to decide whether there should be an order for a stay which would preclude any

enhrcemcnt proaedinga including the service of a bankruptcy notice.	It seems to me that the
p r o s p m of success, as outlined, are not sufGciently great to justify that course.

me motion will therefore be dismissed with costs.

C o u ~ c l for the applicant: R.K Eassie

Solidmra for the applicant:  Frank & Woods

C o d for the respondent: F. Kunc

Solicitor for the redpondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing	7 July 1994
Date of Judgment:	7 July 1994