Liprini v Liprini - [2011] FMCA 1029

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LIPRINI v LIPRINI & ANOR

[2011] FMCA 1029

BANKRUPTCY – Application for annulment of bankruptcy – interim application on issue of vexatious litigant orders.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – An interim application by the respondent that the proceedings should be stayed as a result of the orders made in the Supreme Court of NSW declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant – orders not binding on this Court.

Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) s.88
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.11
Federal Court Rules (Cth) r.6.02
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s.84
High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) r.6.06.1.
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) s.8

Alessa Pty Ltd v Total and Universal Pty Ltd [2001] NSWADT 150
Attorney-General (NSW) v Betts [2004] NSWSC 901
Liprini v Liprini [2010] FMCA 687
Liprini v Liprini [2010] FCA 1117
Liprini v Liprini(No.2) [2010] FCA 1495
Liprini v Liprini & Anor [2011] FMCA 359
Liprini v Liprini [2011] FCA 722
Liprini v Liprini (No.2) [2011] FCA 1150

Applicant:

DR ALLAN STEPHEN LIPRINI

First Respondent:

KEVIN LIPRINI

Second Respondent:

SCOTT PASCOE

File Number:

SYG 2522 of 2011

Judgment of:

Lloyd-Jones FM

Hearing date:

6 December 2011

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

22 December 2011

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

Appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Mr Farrer of Farrer Lawyers

ORDERS

The oral application made on 6 December 2011, seeking that these proceedings be stayed as a result of the orders made in the Supreme Court of New South Wales declaring Dr. Liprini to be a vexatious litigant, is dismissed.
Costs reserved.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2522 of 2011

DR ALLAN STEPHEN LIPRINI

Applicant

And

KEVIN LIPRINI

First Respondent

SCOTT PASCOE

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicant, Dr Allan Stephen Liprini, was made bankrupt by way of a sequestration order made against him on 3 September 2010 in Federal Magistrates Court. On 7 November 2011, Dr Liprini filed an application to this Court, seeking in the following terms:
A. FINAL ORDERS SOUGHT BY APPLICANT
On the grounds stated in the supporting affidavit or statement of claim, the applicant seeks the following orders (Specify in numbered paragraphs all the final orders sought.):
1. …Annulment of Bankruptcy No 7117/10/09 as a result of the sequestration order written by Federal Magistrate Smith on 3^rd September 2010 in the Federal Magistrates Court in Sydney. Under Rule [82,310.15] of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
2. Reversal of all costs orders made in association with all related Bankruptcy matters.*
3. Recommendation for investigation/prosecution by DPP.
*may require specific bankruptcy jurisdiction otherwise all related FCA and FMC matters/proceedings.
B. INTERIM ORDERS SOUGHT BY APPLICANTS
(Complete this section if you also seek interim orders)
1. Stay of all activities either under way or contemplated by the respondents, other parties of their representatives, from the date of this filing until resulting orders entered.
2. Leave (i) to amend grounds and legislation involved.
(ii) in addition (2) if any legal advice is offered or becomes available

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Liprini v Liprini

Details

AGLC: Liprini v Liprini [2011] FMCA 1029
Case: [2011] FMCA 1029
Decision Date: 22 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Liprini v Liprini involved an application for annulment of bankruptcy, where the respondent sought to stay the proceedings based on orders made in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which declared the applicant a vexatious litigant. The application was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues before the court were whether the orders made in the Supreme Court were binding on the Federal Court and, if not, whether the proceedings should be stayed regardless.

The court considered the nature of the orders made by the Supreme Court, which were not binding on the Federal Court. It was noted that the Supreme Court's orders, while relevant, did not have the authority to compel the Federal Court to stay the proceedings. The court also examined the criteria for staying proceedings in the Federal Court and whether they were met in this case. Ultimately, the court held that the orders of the Supreme Court were not binding on the Federal Court and did not compel a stay of the proceedings. The court dismissed the respondent's application to stay the proceedings and reserved costs for further determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

The oral application made on 6 December 2011, seeking that these proceedings be stayed as a result of the orders made in the Supreme Court of New South Wales declaring Dr. Liprini to be a vexatious litigant, is dismissed.

Costs reserved.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.