Lion Finance Pty Ltd v Johnston

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LION FINANCE PTY LTD v JOHNSTON [2018] FCCA 2745

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Application for review made out of time – Application for review found to be entirely without merit – Application for review dismissed and costs ordered.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.32, 52(1)

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.104

Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth), r.2.02(3)

Cases cited:

Meads v Meads (2012) ABQB 571

First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly, Dec. 9, 1968 (Justice Court, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota)
Zurn v Northwestern National Bank 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600 (1969)

Applicant: LION FINANCE PTY LTD

Respondent: BELINDA JOHNSTON

File Number: BRG 189 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Middleton

Hearing date: 15 June 2018

Date of Last Submission: 15 June 2018

Delivered at: Townsville

Delivered on: 5 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: CLH Lawyers

Respondent appearing on her own behalf

ORDERS

1. The application for review be dismissed.

2. The applicant (Belinda Johnston) pay the respondent (Lion Finance Pty Ltd) costs of and incidental to the application filed on 28 May 2018 as agreed or taxed. 

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 189 of 2018

LION FINANCE PTY LTD

Applicant

And

BELINDA JOHNSTON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This application was commenced on 28 May 2018 by Ms Johnston.  In the application she seeks a review of the sequestration order made by Registrar Belcher on 3 May 2018. 

2. The first order she seeks in her application is that the order made by Registrar Belcher be set aside, pursuant to section 104 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth).

3. The second order sought by the applicant is that Lion Finance Pty Ltd (Lion Finance) and CLH Lawyers to cease and desist all and any contact with us (sic) regarding this or any other matter. 

4. The third order sought is that the creditor's petition filed by creditor to be dismissed. 

5. The fourth order sought was that a stay of proceedings until orders are set aside (sic). 

6. The fifth order sought was the Court to make no orders for costs. 

7. The last order sought was “my right of subrogation to be applied by the Creditor, Judge and Registrar to the effect of full set off and closure to file BRG189/2018.” 

8. In the applicant's (Johnston) affidavit in support of her application at paragraph 3 the applicant (Johnston) says that she has requested but never received various documentation in evidence including validation of the debt;  

   “by production of evidence of the amount paid to Westpac for the debt in question, proof of standing by “the production of the original credit contract” and breakdown of claimed amount “as we believe interest is not to be applied without a payment arrangement in place, and the original debt was $5868.88." 

9. The applicant (Johnston) annexes a DNA analysis to “verify standing in this matter and observe the fact no other party to this case has proven, standing, despite multiple requests."

10. The…