Pineview Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Dimitriou

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pineview Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Dimitriou [2019] FCA 1342

File number:

NSD 1245 of 2018

Judge:

WIGNEY  J

Date of judgment:

12 August 2019

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment of hearing of creditor’s petition – application for extension of time to file evidence in opposition to creditor’s petition – where applicant had applied for and been granted numerous pervious adjournments – where debtor had changed legal representation on multiple occasions – where “guillotine” order previously made in relation to the filing of evidence in relation to opposition of creditor’s petition – where debtor submitted that a refusal of the adjournment would be prejudicial to him

Cases cited:

Culleton v Balwyn Nominees Pty Limited, [2017] FCAFC 8

Re Sarina, Council of the Shire of Wollondilly [1980] FCA 66; 43 FLR 1

Date of hearing:

12 August 2019

Registry:

New South Wales

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area:

General and Personal Insolvency

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

32

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J Lee

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Kekatos Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr H W Somerville

Solicitor for the Respondent:

TPS&Co Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 1245 of 2018

BETWEEN:

PINEVIEW PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 155 051 157

Applicant

AND:

GEORGE DIMITRIOU

Respondent

JUDGE:	WIGNEY  J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 AUGUST 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondent’s application for an extension of time to file evidence and for an adjournment of the hearing listed at 10.15am on 21 August 2019 be dismissed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript)

WIGNEY J:

1. On 12 July 2018, the applicant in this matter, Pineview Property Holdings Pty Limited, filed a creditor’s petition against the respondent, Mr George Dimitriou.  This is a further application by Mr Dimitriou to adjourn the hearing of the creditor’s petition.  For the reasons that follow, the application must be dismissed. 

2. Counsel who appeared for Mr Dimitriou and sought an adjournment of the hearing on his behalf, Mr Somerville, conceded that the matter had a “checkered past”.  That assessment of the history of the matter was not entirely accurate insofar as it implied that something positive may have occurred in the past.  As the following chronology of events demonstrates, nothing that has occurred in the course of this proceeding could be characterised as positive, at least insofar as Mr Dimitriou’s actions are concerned. 

3. As already indicated, the creditor’s petition was presented to the Court on 12 July 2018.  On 15 August 2018, Mr Dimitriou filed a detailed notice setting out his grounds of opposition to the creditor’s petition.  On the same day, a Registrar of the Court ordered Mr Dimitriou to file and serve his evidence in support of his opposition to the petition by 26 September 2018. 

4. The matter was subsequently referred to my docket.  On 26 September 2018, Mr Dimitriou sought an…