Mircevski v Pattison

[2011] FCA 740

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mircevski v Pattison [2011] FCA 740

Citation:		Mircevski v Pattison [2011] FCA 740
Parties:		ALEX MIRCEVSKI v PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON and PATTISON BUSINESS RECOVERY & INSOLVENCY SPECIALISTS PTY LTD (ACN 098 345 343) and INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICE AUSTRALIA and DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR TAXATION
File number:		VID 193 of 2011
Judge:		MARSHALL J
Date of judgment:		25 May 2011
Date of hearing:	25 May 2011
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Number of paragraphs:	3
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr G Slater
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr P Fary
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Meltzer Green Lawyers
Counsel for the Third Respondent:	Ms C Gobbo
Solicitor for the Third Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent:	Mr J Matheson of ATO Legal Services
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent	ATO Legal Services

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 193 of 2011

BETWEEN:

ALEX MIRCEVSKI
Applicant

AND:

PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON
First Respondent

PATTISON BUSINESS RECOVERY & INSOLVENCY SPECIALISTS PTY LTD (ACN 098 345 343)
Second Respondent

INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICE AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR TAXATION
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 MAY 2011
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The substantive application is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

3.The applicant pay the third respondent’s costs of the proceeding.

4.There is liberty to apply on the question of costs.  

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 193 of 2011

BETWEEN:

ALEX MIRCEVSKI
Applicant

AND:

PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON
First Respondent

PATTISON BUSINESS RECOVERY & INSOLVENCY SPECIALISTS PTY LTD (ACN 098 345 343)
Second Respondent

INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICE AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR TAXATION
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	25 MAY 2011
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. At the hearing of this matter the applicant sought leave, through his counsel, Mr Slater, “to withdraw this matter before the court in whole”. This, in effect, was an application to discontinue the proceeding.

2. Counsel for the first respondent, Mr Fary, opposed the applicant’s application to discontinue and made submissions seeking that the matter be dismissed instead. Mr Fary submitted that “[t]oday is the hearing. There is no evidence before the court and so the court is in a position to dismiss the application.” Mr Slater then confirmed that the applicant had no evidence to present on his application.

3. I found Mr Fary’s submissions for dismissal of the matter persuasive and consequently made the orders set out above.  

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.

Associate:

Dated:       29 June 2011