Lo Pilato (Trustee), in the matter of Ghougassian (Bankrupt) v Ghougassian

The Trustee in bankruptcy for the bankrupts, Daniel and Michael Ghougassian, sought orders that his amended summonses be heard and determined prior to the respondents' cross-claims. The Court was required to determine whether, in the exercise of its discretion, it was appropriate to depart from the ordinary course that all issues should be determined at one time. The Court also needed to decide if it was just and convenient for the summonses to be heard and determined before the cross-claims. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Federal Court Rules 2011, and previous cases such as Shrimp v Landmark Operations Limited.

The Court concluded that it had the power to make the orders sought by the Trustee, as provided by sections 37M and 37P of the Federal Court Act and Rule 15.13 of the Rules. The Court considered the overriding purpose of facilitating the just resolution of disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. It found that the principles in Han Jing, which concerned an application for the Court to determine certain questions arising in the proceedings separately, were not relevant in this case. The Court determined that it was just and convenient for the summonses to be heard and determined prior to the cross-claims. The Trustee's interlocutory applications were thus granted.

The Court ordered that the applicant's amended summonses be heard and determined prior to the hearing of the respondents' amended cross-claims. The first and second respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the interlocutory application. The proceeding was listed for a case management hearing on 4 October 2022 at 9:30 am AEDT. Entry of orders was to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.