Prestia v Pacific Counties Corporation Pty Limited

[2008] FCA 2005

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Prestia v Pacific Counties Corporation Pty Limited [2008] FCA 2005

JULIE ANNE PRESTIA v PACIFIC COUNTIES CORPORATION PTY LIMITED

NSD 474 OF 2008

EMMETT J

5 DECEMBER 2008

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 474 OF 2008

BETWEEN: JULIE ANNE PRESTIA
Applicant

AND: PACIFIC COUNTIES CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
ACN 002 143 937
Respondent

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 DECEMBER 2008
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Notice of Motion filed on 22 October 2008 be dismissed.

2.The Applicant on the motion pay the respondent’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 474 OF 2008

BETWEEN:	JULIE ANNE PRESTIA Applicant
AND:	PACIFIC COUNTIES CORPORATION PTY LIMITED ACN 002 143 937 Respondent

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	5 DECEMBER 2008
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 1 October 2008, Deputy Registrar Hedge made an order that Bankruptcy Notice number NN 688 of 2008 be set aside.  Registrar Hedge also ordered that the applicant debtor pay the respondent creditor’s costs fixed in the amount of $2,500.  Those orders were made in absentia.  The debtor did not attend that hearing and there has been no explanation offered as to why the debtor did not attend.  However, on 22 October 2008, the debtor filed a notice of motion seeking review of the Registrar’s decision.  That motion was listed for hearing on 12 November 2008.  It appears to have been adjourned to 13 November 2008, when Cowdroy J gave directions for the debtor to file and serve any evidence upon which she wished to rely before 4 pm on 27 November 2008.  The matter was stood over for directions today before the duty judge. 

2. When the matter was called on today, I was informed that Cowdroy J’s directions had not been complied with and no explanation was offered as to why they had not been complied with.  In the circumstances I consider the appropriate course is to dismiss the notice of motion for want of compliance with the Court’s directions.  

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:       16 January 2009

Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms C Mathews
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Russo & Partners
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms ST Chrysanthou
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Landerer & Company
Date of Hearing:	5 December 2008
Date of Judgment:	5 December 2008