Pattison v Wates

Case [2007] FMCA 1068


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PATTISON v WATES & ANOR [2007] FMCA 1068
BANKRUPTCY – Trustee application for sale of property.
Official Receiver v Tregaskis & Anor [2006] FMCA 1915
Applicant: PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF KEITH AND MELISSA WATES
First Respondent: KEITH WATES
Second Respondent: MELISSA WATES
File number: MLG 687 of 2007
Judgment of: McInnis FM
Hearing date: 4 July 2007
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 4 July 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr T. Scotter
Solicitors for the Applicant: Kemon Pty Ltd t/as O’Neill Behan & Associates
First Respondent: In person
Second Respondent: In person

ORDERS

  1. The Respondents vacate the property described as Volume 10092 Folio 946 and having a street address of 18 Ferguson Road, Leopold, Victoria (the property) within 30 days of the date of this order.

  2. In the event that the Respondents fail to give vacant possession of the property in accordance with Order 1 hereof, a Writ of Possession may issue forthwith.

  3. The Respondents shall pay the Applicant's costs, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules and that the costs of the proceeding shall be paid with priority out of the bankrupt estate of the Respondents.

  4. Liberty to apply is granted to the parties upon two days' written notice.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 687 of 2007

PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF KEITH AND MELISSA WATES

Applicant

And

KEITH WATES

First Respondent

MELISSA WATES

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

  1. In this matter, Paul Anthony Pattison as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Keith and Melissa Wates makes an application for a number of orders which include the following: 

    “That the respondents vacate the property described as volume 10092 folio 943 and having a street address of 18 Ferguson Road, Leopold, Victoria within 14 days of this order.”

  2. Other orders are sought that in the event that the Respondents fail to give vacant possession of the property, then a writ of possession may issue.  The Applicant also seeks costs. 

  3. The Applicant, in support of this application, relies upon two affidavits, the first an affidavit sworn 19 January 2007 by the Applicant which recites the background details as follows:-

    “1.I am the Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Keith Wates (VB No. 3822 of 2005) and the Bankrupt Estate of Melissa Wates (VB No. 4583 of 2005) having been appointed as Trustee of the Estate of Mr Wates on 25 October 2005 and of Mrs Wates on 22 December 2005.  Now produced and shown to me and marked with the letters ‘PP1’ are extracts from the National Personal Insolvency Index relating to my appointment as Trustee.

    2.…

    3.Since I was appointed Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Mr and Mrs Wates, there has been a series of discussions with them and their solicitors and accountants to seek to negotiate payments…

Continue reading Pattison v Wates

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pattison v Wates [2007] FMCA 1068
Case
[2007] FMCA 1068
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pattison v Wates involved a dispute between the applicant, Pattison, and the respondents, Wates, who were in possession of a property located at 18 Ferguson Road, Leopold, Victoria. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant sought an order for possession of the property, alleging that the respondents had failed to vacate the premises despite the expiration of their tenancy.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had a valid lease or other entitlement to occupy the property, and if not, whether the applicant was entitled to possession. The court had to determine if the respondents had any legitimate claim to remain on the property after the expiry of their lease, and if the applicant had fulfilled the necessary legal requirements to obtain an order for possession.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence and the terms of any agreements between the parties. It found that there was no valid lease in place and that the respondents had no legal right to remain on the property. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to possession and issued an order requiring the respondents to vacate the property within 30 days. Additionally, the court ordered that if the respondents did not comply, a writ of possession could be issued immediately. The court also ruled that the respondents must pay the applicant's costs, with priority over other creditors in their bankruptcy estate, and granted liberty to apply to either party under certain conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The Respondents vacate the property described as Volume 10092 Folio 946 and having a street address of 18 Ferguson Road, Leopold, Victoria (the property) within 30 days of the date of this order.

2.

In the event that the Respondents fail to give vacant possession of the property in accordance with Order 1 hereof, a Writ of Possession may issue forthwith.

3.

The Respondents shall pay the Applicant's costs, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules and that the costs of the proceeding shall be paid with priority out of the bankrupt estate of the Respondents.

4.

Liberty to apply is granted to the parties upon two days' written notice.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.