FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pitman v Pantzer (Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Thomas Richard Wenkart) [2002] FCA 53
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – joinder.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
ALAN PITMAN V WARREN PANTZER (TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE
OF THOMAS RICHARD WENKART)
N7752 OF 2000
JUDGE: BEAUMONT J
DATE: 8 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE: SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N7752 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
ALAN PITMAN
APPLICANTAND:
WARREN PANTZER (TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS RICHARD WENKART)
FIRST RESPONDENTTHROVENA PTY LIMITED, HAPDAY HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED AND MACQUARIE HEALTH CORPORATION LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENTSAND BETWEEN: THROVENA PTY LIMITED, HAPDAY HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED AND MACQUARIE HEALTH CORPORATION LIMITED
CROSS-APPLICANTSAND ALAN PITMAN
FIRST CROSS-RESPONDENTWARREN PANTZER (TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS RICHARD WENKART)
SECOND CROSS-RESPONDENTGENNARO ABIGNANO AND GENALLCO PTY LIMITED
THIRD CROSS-RESPONDENTSJUDGE:
BEAUMONT J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application to discharge the ex parte order made on 15 January 2002 joining Gennaro Abignano and Genallco Pty Limited as third cross-respondents be refused.
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
N7752 OF 2000
BETWEEN:
ALAN PITMAN
APPLICANTAND:
WARREN PANTZER (TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS RICHARD WENKART)
FIRST RESPONDENTTHROVENA PTY LIMITED, HAPDAY HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED AND MACQUARIE HEALTH CORPORATION LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENTSAND BETWEEN: THROVENA PTY LIMITED, HAPDAY HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED AND MACQUARIE HEALTH CORPORATION LIMITED
CROSS-APPLICANTSAND ALAN PITMAN
FIRST CROSS-RESPONDENTWARREN PANTZER (TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS RICHARD WENKART)
SECOND CROSS-RESPONDENTGENNARO ABIGNANO AND GENALLCO PTY LIMITED
THIRD CROSS-RESPONDENTSJUDGE:
BEAUMONT J
DATE:
8 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(ON APPLICATION BY THIRD CROSS-RESPONDENT TO DISCHARGE ORDER FOR THEIR JOINDER)BEAUMONT J:
INTRODUCTION
These are written reasons, essentially the same as those given orally at the time, for refusing, on Mr Burton’s application, to discharge my earlier ex parte order for the joinder of Abignano and Genallco. Having noted that Mr Abignano, by virtue of his affidavit sworn 5 February 2001, was at all material times aware of these proceedings, in essence, my reasons for so refusing were:
·Provided Abignano and Genallco were, as I propose, protected on costs they would suffer no real prejudice if joined. Indeed, in my view, it was in their interests to settle any residual uncertainties.
·Section 22 of the Federal Court Act exhorts the Court to avoid multiplicity of suit.
ORDERS
1.That the application to discharge the ex parte order made on 15 January 2002 joining Gennaro Abignano and Genallco Pty Limited as third cross-respondents be refused.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beaumont.
Associate:
Dated: 8 February 2002
Solicitor for the Applicant:
The Bruce & Stewart Commercial Practice
Counsel for the Cross-Applicants (Intervening Creditors):
Mr J K Chippindall
Solicitor for the Cross-Applicants (Intervening Creditors):
Hunt & Hunt
Counsel for the Third Cross-Respondents:
Mr G Burton
Date of Hearing:
17 January 2002
Date of Judgment:
8 February 2002
- AGLC
- Pitman v Pantzer (Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Thomas Richard Wenkart) [2002] FCA 53
- Case
- [2002] FCA 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the ex parte order that joined Gennaro Abignano and Genallco Pty Limited as third cross-respondents was appropriate and if there were grounds to discharge the order. The court had to consider the principles of natural justice and whether the applicants had a legitimate interest in the proceedings. Additionally, the court examined the relevance of the third cross-respondents in relation to the enforcement of the judgment debt and the assets of the bankrupt estate.
The court determined that the ex parte order was justified under the circumstances, as it was necessary to prevent the dissipation of assets that might be relevant to the judgment debt. The court found that the applicants had a legitimate interest in the proceedings and that discharging the order would not be in the interests of justice. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all potentially liable parties were before the court to address the enforcement of the judgment debt effectively. Consequently, the application to discharge the order was refused, and the ex parte order remained in effect.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application to discharge the ex parte order made on 15 January 2002 joining Gennaro Abignano and Genallco Pty Limited as third cross-respondents be refused.
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.