Prestia v Pacific Counties Corporation Pty Limited

Case [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
Details
AGLC
Prestia v Pacific Counties Corporation Pty Limited [2008] FCA 2005
Case
[2008] FCA 2005
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prestia v Pacific Counties Corporation Pty Limited was a matter heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Prestia, sought to set aside a judgment obtained by the respondent, Pacific Counties Corporation Pty Limited. The dispute centred on the enforcement of a judgment debt and the procedural fairness of the proceedings that led to the judgment.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant had demonstrated a valid basis to set aside the judgment. The applicant argued that there were procedural irregularities and a lack of natural justice in the proceedings that warranted setting aside the judgment. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the judgment was correctly obtained and that there were no grounds for setting it aside.

The Court considered the application under the inherent jurisdiction to ensure justice and to prevent an abuse of process. It examined the procedural fairness of the original proceedings and whether there were any irregularities that warranted intervention. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any procedural unfairness or abuse of process that would justify setting aside the judgment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the motion and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs incurred in defending the motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

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.