Miro Krpina v Arrow Sun Australia Pty Ltd

[2015] HCASL 123

MIRO KRPINA

v

ARROW SUN AUSTRALIA PTY LTD & ORS

[2015] HCASL 123
M34/2015

1. The first respondent obtained default judgment in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria against the applicant.  The first respondent issued a bankruptcy notice based on the judgment debt and later filed a creditor's petition.  A sequestration order was made and the second and third respondents were appointed as trustees of the applicant's estate.  An application for review of the sequestration order was dismissed by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Whelan). 

2. The Federal Court of Australia (Beach J) dismissed an appeal by the applicant in which he sought to argue, amongst other things, that the bankruptcy notice was a nullity, that he was solvent, that the conduct of the second and third respondents had caused him loss and that he had been denied procedural fairness because of the failure of the Federal Circuit Court to appoint a pro bono lawyer to act on his behalf.  

3. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court. The applicant does not have legal representation and requires a short enlargement of time for the filing of his application for special leave to appeal to this Court. The application therefore falls to be dealt with under rr 4.02 and 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

4. We would grant the applicant an enlargement of time under r 4.02 but would not grant special leave to appeal. The applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal are in substance the same as those raised in his appeal to the Federal Court with the additional unparticularised complaint that both the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court were actuated by bias in failing to set aside the sequestration order. The applicant's application fails to identify any question of law which would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. Nor does it disclose any basis on which to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Federal Court. The interests of justice not being engaged, the application is dismissed.

5. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
13 August 2015 S.J. Gageler