Pascoe; in the matter of Hudson

[2006] FCA 147

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pascoe; in the matter of Hudson [2006] FCA 147

IN THE MATTER OF PETER GEORGE HUDSON, a bankrupt

SCOTT DARREN PASCOE
as Trustee of the Property of Peter George Hudson

NSD 1817 OF 2005

LINDGREN J
22 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1817 OF 2005

IN THE MATTER OF PETER GEORGE HUDSON, a bankrupt

SCOTT DARREN PASCOE as Trustee of the property of Peter George Hudson, a bankrupt APPLICANT
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The motion brought by the bankrupt, Peter George Hudson, by notice of motion filed on 30 January 2006, be dismissed.

2.        The bankrupt, Peter George Hudson, pay the trustee’s costs of the motion.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1817 OF 2005

IN THE MATTER OF PETER GEORGE HUDSON, a bankrupt

SCOTT DARREN PASCOE as Trustee of the property of Peter George Hudson, a bankrupt APPLICANT
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	22 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The bankrupt, Peter George Hudson (‘Mr Hudson’), does not appear today on his motion, which was brought by a notice of motion filed electronically on 30 January 2006. 

2. The motion was before the Court on 15 February 2006, when a solicitor, Mr Merewether, appeared for Mr Hudson.  On that occasion I stood the matter over to today at 9.30 am and reserved liberty for the trustee, Scott Darren Pascoe (‘Mr Pascoe’), to apply today for summary dismissal.  I also directed that Mr Hudson file and serve, by Tuesday, 21 February 2006, any affidavits and copies of exhibits on which he intended to rely, conforming to the Court’s rules.  He had filed an affidavit by facsimile referring to exhibits, but the affidavit was not in proper form. 

3. I also directed Mr Hudson to inform the Court on the hearing today, whether he would file an affidavit disclosing what happened to the distribution made to him from his late mother’s estate and its whereabouts, on the basis that the affidavit would be placed in a sealed envelope and its contents not be disclosed except with leave of the Court.

4. On 15 February, Mr Hudson’s motion was before the Court at 9.30 am and it was stood down to 2.15 pm to allow Mr Merewether to obtain instructions from his client.  Mr Hudson faxed a letter to me following the 9.30 am hearing, advising that there was ‘an unfortunate conflict of interests between [Mr Pascoe] and ... [Mr Merewether]’.  When I caused Mr Merewether to be shown the letter at 2.15 pm it took him by surprise.  I should make it clear that Mr Merewether had informed the Court that he appeared for Mr Hudson only for the purpose of the hearing on the day (15 February).

5. Mr Hudson sent a facsimile letter to my chambers on 20 February 2006 asking that I ‘temporarily withdraw’ his notice of motion.  He attached two medical certificates, one dated as long ago as 6 December 2004 and the other dated as long ago as 7 September 2005.

6. My Associate attempted to forward a letter to Mr Hudson yesterday and to contact him otherwise, but without success.  Now, this morning, he has sent a faxed memo stating that on 20 February he ‘withdrew’ his notice of motion listed for a directions hearing today.

7. Mr Hudson has not complied with the Court’s directions on the last occasion and has not been granted an adjournment of today's hearing, and indeed did not indicate any date to which he requested that today's hearing be adjourned.  It seems that according to his memo of today, he does not wish to proceed with the present motion.

8. A dismissal of his motion will not, of course, prevent him from filing a fresh notice of motion supported by affidavit, conforming to the Court’s rules.

9. Mr Hudson’s motion should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.

Associate:

Dated:  27  February 2006

Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms S Nash, of Sally Nash & Co
Date of Hearing:	22 February 2006
Date of Judgment:	22 February 2006