Maytom v Warren McKeon Dickson Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Maytom v Warren McKeon Dickson Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1300

Citation:		Maytom v Warren McKeon Dickson Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1300
Appeal from:		Application for extension of time and leave to appeal:  Federal Magistrates Court (Orders)
Parties:		GARY MAYTOM v WARREN MCKEON DICKSON PTY LTD (ACN 126 081 445) and JACKSON LALIC PTY LTD
File number:		NSD 1766 of 2012
Judge:		FOSTER J
Date of judgment:		20 November 2012
Date of hearing:	20 November 2012
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	8
Solicitor for the Applicant:	The Applicant did not appear initially but subsequently appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms IJ King
Solicitor for the Trustee of the Applicant’s Estate:	Ms Nash

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1766 of 2012

BETWEEN:

GARY MAYTOM
Applicant

AND:

WARREN MCKEON DICKSON PTY LTD (ACN 126 081 445)
First Respondent

JACKSON LALIC PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	FOSTER J
DATE OF ORDER:	20 NOVEMBER 2012
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal from Orders made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 2 August 2012 be dismissed. 

2.        The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to that application.  

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1766 of 2012

BETWEEN:

GARY MAYTOM
Applicant

AND:

WARREN MCKEON DICKSON PTY LTD (ACN 126 081 445)
First Respondent

JACKSON LALIC PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	FOSTER J
DATE:	20 NOVEMBER 2012
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 8 November 2012, the applicant filed an application in this Court for an order extending the time within which he might seek leave to appeal from certain orders made by a Federal Magistrate on 2 August 2012.  Those orders, which were essentially procedural in nature, were in the following terms:

   UPON APPLICATION MADE TO THE COURT, MR JOHNSON appearing for the RESPONDENT, MR KELLY appearing for the SUPPORTING CREDITOR, MS NASH appearing for the TRUSTEE and the APPLICANT appearing IN PERSON by telephone

   THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

   1.The Court notes that following the sequestration order made on 6 March 2012 in the absence of the respondent debtor, the respondent debtor filed an Application in a Case on 5 June 2012 pursuant to 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

   2.The Court notes that due to ill health, the debtor has been unable to date to prosecute the application to a hearing.

   3.Having regard to the lapse of time, the Court will treat the Application in a Case filed on 5 June 2012 as an application for annulment under s.153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

   4.The applicant on the annulment application (Mr Maytom) is to file and serve on the respondent creditor any amended application by 7 September 2012.