Megalos and Katsaros and Ors

[2018] FamCA 388

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MEGALOS & KATSAROS & ORS [2018] FamCA 388

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – s 79A application – where the parties were the wife’s bankrupt estate trustee on the one hand and the liquidators of companies conducted by the husband – where settlement was achieved and orders sought.
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Adjournment – where the bankrupt wife opposed the consent orders saying she wanted an adjournment – where her proposed application was vague and likely to be futile – adjournment refused.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) S 79A

APPLICANT: Ms Megalos

1ST RESPONDENT:	Mr Katsaros
2ND RESPONDENT:	Mr B Katsaros
3RD RESPONDENT:	C Pty Ltd (ACN …)
4TH RESPONDENT:	D Pty Ltd (ACN …)
5TH RESPONDENT:	E Pty Ltd (ACN …)
6TH RESPONDENT:	F Pty Ltd (ACN …)
7TH RESPONDENT:	Mr Calas as Trustee of the bankrupt estate of Ms Megalos
FILE NUMBER:	MLC	6793	of		2012

DATE DELIVERED: 18 May 2018

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 18 May 2018

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT:

In Person

COUNSEL FOR THE LIQUIDATORS

OF C PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND D PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION):

Mr Galvin QC with Ms Wald

SOLICITOR FOR THE LIQUIDATORS OF C PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND D PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION): Ascot Solicitors

COUNSEL FOR THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY Mr Fary

SOLICITOR FOR THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY Zervos Lawyers

Orders

That BY CONSENT of the Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Ms Megalos and the liquidators of C Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and D Pty Ltd (in liquidation) but not with the consent of Ms Megalos who appears in person and upon hearing Mr Galvin QC with Ms Wald for the liquidators of the said companies and Mr Fary of counsel for the trustee in bankruptcy

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. That the injunctions granted on 15 January 2015 are discharged.

2. That all outstanding applications for final orders are otherwise dismissed.

3. There be no order as to costs.

4. That the reasons this day be transcribed.

5. That the application by the wife (Ms Megalos) for an adjournment is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Megalos & Katsaros and Ors has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 6793 of 2012

Ms Megalos

Applicant

And

Mr Katsaros

1^st Respondent

And

Mr B Katsaros

2^nd Respondent

And

C Pty Ltd (ACN …)

3^rd Respondent

And

D Pty Ltd (ACN …)

4^th Respondent

And

E Pty Ltd (ACN …)

5^th Respondent

And

F Pty Ltd (ACN …)

6^th Respondent

And

Mr Calas as Trustee of the bankrupt estate of Ms Megalos7^th Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by Ms Megalos for an adjournment.  She represents herself after her solicitor on the court record attended earlier this morning to indicate that he was ceasing to act.  In her absence at that time the solicitor told me that Ms Megalos was aware of the proceedings today but that she was too ill to attend.  Indeed, 30 minutes later Ms Megalos has arrived.  Ms Megalos has opposed the court making the orders to which I shall turn in a moment on the basis that in 2015, when orders were made by consent, they involved her now 15 year old son.  In 2015, there was only one order of any substance in relation to property which gave rise to the exercise of a judicial power of the Commonwealth, and that was an order that the husband pay the wife $500,000.  There were some written ramblings as to why that was happening and what was going to happen with money, but in reality, they were not the exercise of power. 

2. Subsequent to the orders a dispute arose between the liquidators of two companies previously controlled by the husband and the trustee of the estate of Ms Megalos.  As she points out today, even though the period of time that would, normally, apply for a bankrupt has expired, she is not yet discharged.  That means that any interest she may have in any property vests in her trustee. 

3. Ms Megalos says she is not ready to proceed, because her lawyers have withdrawn from her at the last moment, and she is going to bring some application. The extant applications before the court can be seen in two documents. An application in a case was filed by her lawyers on 11 April 2017. That document seeks a resolution of the property dispute, and she joined forces with one of the parties, but there is no indication of any application in relation to her son. The more important document, however, is her response to the initiating application of the liquidators. That document was filed on 3 October 2017 and drawn by counsel. That application seeks a dismissal of the section 79A application brought by the liquidators, that the various applications otherwise be dismissed and that there be orders for costs on an indemnity basis.

4. There was no suggestion of any application for the exercise of the alteration of property interests in favour of a child, nor could there be, because the power of the court under section 79 of the Family Law Act had been exhausted. Section 79A is the only provision open to the court to revisit and alter any property interests.

5. The application under section 79A sought by the liquidators was opposed by Ms Megalos. Her application was that their application be dismissed. It seems, therefore, if I was to adjourn the proceedings, it would be futile. In this case, everyone has a right to move on with their lives. It has been in the court system for the best part of six years, and it is time to bring it to an end. In my view, there is no basis to adjourn the proceedings. The application is refused.

6. As between the liquidators and the trustee in bankruptcy, there is today agreement signed by counsel for the bankruptcy trustee in his absence, but I have no doubt there is consensus, and I have been told that there are terms of settlement. 

7. The only orders I am asked to make today are to discharge injunctions that were granted on 15 January 2015 and otherwise that all proceedings be otherwise dismissed and there be no orders for cost.  I propose to make those orders and have these reasons transcribed. 

I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 18 May 2018.

Associate: 

Date:  29 May 2018