Mansour, Anthony v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1997] FCA 1436

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 8259  of   1997

BETWEEN:	ANTHONY MANSOUR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE(S):		BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:		2 DECEMBER 1997
WHERE MADE:		SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 8259  of 1997

BETWEEN:	ANTHONY MANSOUR APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE(S):	BRANSON J
DATE:	2 DECEMBER 1997
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (EX TEMPORE)

I have before me today an application by Mr Mansour for an order that a bankruptcy notice, which he acknowledges was served on him on 14 October 1997, be set aside.  By the same application, he seeks an order that the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice be extended “up to the end of these Proceedings and to end of negotiations with the relevant Immigration department and with the relevant Immigration ministers”.  The application further seeks an order that a judgment against Mr Mansour in another proceeding in this Court be stayed.  That application, of course, cannot be pressed on the current application. 

I also have in front of me a notice of motion taken out by Mr Mansour, seeking an order “that  the hearing for Bankruptcy Proceedings” set for today be vacated and stayed, and that this proceeding be referred back to Registrar Quinn to be placed “under case management”. 

I have listened attentively to all that Mr Mansour has put to me as to why the matter listed before me today should not proceed today.   That matter is, as has already been mentioned, an application by Mr Mansour, principally seeking an order setting aside a bankruptcy notice. 

The application in this matter was filed on 4 November 1997 and a directions hearing on the application was listed for Tuesday 18 November 1997.   On 18 November 1997, the matter came before a Registrar.  The matter was referred by the Registrar to me as the duty judge on that day.  On that day I allowed a two week adjournment to Mr Mansour after he put to the Court that he was not in good health and that he wished to seek legal representation.  Nothing before the Court today suggests that Mr Mansour has used the two week adjournment to seek to obtain legal representation, and no further medical evidence has been offered to the Court.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Bankruptcy Act”) discloses a clear intention that applications to deal with bankruptcy notices should be dealt with promptly. The evidence placed before the Court by Mr Mansour on his application to set aside the bankruptcy notice does not on its face disclose any ground for setting aside the bankruptcy notice. Nor, having listened carefully to Mr Mansour today, have I identified in what he has said to the Court, any proper ground upon which the bankruptcy notice should be set aside. He has produced nothing to suggest that he has a counter claim, set off or cross demand of the kind of which section 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act speaks. Nor has he identified any formal defect in the bankruptcy notice.

I do not understand Mr Mansour to suggest that no real debt underlies the judgment upon which the bankruptcy notice is based.  The bankruptcy notice was not placed before me by Mr Mansour as the rules of the Court require.   However, Mr Rowe, counsel for the respondent, at my request, handed to me a copy of the bankruptcy notice.   Mr Mansour acknowledged, subject to his having only a short time to look at it, that the document handed to me by Mr Rowe, appeared to be a copy of the bankruptcy notice served on him.   The bankruptcy notice requires payment of a judgment debt which I understand arises out of a costs order made by Davies J in this Court.  I see no reason, on the material in front of me, to suggest the Court should seek to go behind that judgment debt. 

I am not satisfied that giving Mr Mansour additional time to place his submissions to the Court on his application to set aside the bankruptcy notice would in fact provide him with any benefit.   He has raised no ground upon which the bankruptcy notice could be set aside.   I am satisfied that there is no ground upon which the bankruptcy notice in this case should be set aside.  

The application, dated 4 November 1997, is dismissed.  The notice of motion filed on 26 November 1997 is also dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Branson.

Associate:

Dated:            2 December 1997

The Applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Rowe
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	2 December 1997
Date of Judgment:	2 December 1997