Purple Sunset Holdings Pty Ltd v Jones, in the matter of Cattana

Case [2025] FCA 659

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Purple Sunset Holdings Pty Ltd v Jones, in the matter of Cattana [2025] FCA 659  

File number(s): NSD 65 of 2025
Judgment of: JACKMAN J
Date of judgment: 12 June 2025
Date of publication of reasons: 18 June 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – adjournment application – where ample time given to enable second respondent to prepare case, obtain legal advice and file evidence – application refused
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 6
Date of hearing: 12 June 2025
Counsel for Applicants: Mr F Salama with Mr J Douglas
Solicitors for Applicants: DME Legal
Solicitors for First Respondent: Mr P Hunt of Hunts.Law Aus
Counsel for Second Respondent: The Second Respondent appeared in person

 

ORDERS

NSD 65 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF JONATHAN FRANCO CATTANA
BETWEEN:

PURPLE SUNSET HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 609 659 565 ATF THE DIANA SUPER FUND OF UNIT

First Applicant

CHALTON INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 606 470 106 ATF THE CHALLITA FAMILY SUPERANNUATION FUND

Second Applicant
AND:

MICHAEL GREGORY JONES (IN HIS CAPACITY AS CONTROLLING TRUSTEE OF JONATHAN FRANCO CATTANA)

First Respondent

JONATHAN FRANCO CATTANA

Second Respondent

6 JANITA PTY LTD
ACN 653 486 170 (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JACKMAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The second respondent’s application for adjournment be refused with costs.

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

JACKMAN J:

  1. Mr Cattana, the second respondent, has applied this morning, being the day fixed for the hearing, for an adjournment of the hearing of the matter. The reason put forward by Mr Cattana for seeking the adjournment is to enable him, as an unrepresented litigant, to have a proper and adequate opportunity to prepare his case, obtain legal advice and file evidence in response to the application.

  2. On 10 February 2025, I made orders preparing the matter for hearing and fixed the hearing for 12 June 2025 with an estimate of two days. Mr Hunt appeared for the first respondent and was asked to mention the appearance of the second respondent if Mr Cattana was not online, which appeared to be the case. On 7 April 2025, I made further orders extending the time for steps to be taken for the hearing, and I confirmed the hearing on 12 June 2025. On that occasion, a solicitor, Mr Panetta, appeared for Mr Cattana.

  3. On 22 May 2025, Mr Cattana's solicitor, Mr Panetta, gave him a notice of intention to cease to act. On 30 May 2025, after the seven day period expired, Mr Panetta completed a notice of ceasing to act, giving Mr Cattana's last known address and email address.

  4. In my view, Mr Cattana has already had ample time to enable him to prepare his case, obtain legal advice and file evidence in response to the application.

  5. The applicants submit that substantial costs have been incurred in preparation for today's hearing. Mr Cattana has indicated that he would consent to an order that he pay the applicants’ and the first respondent's reasonable costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment which he seeks. However, if the applicants succeed in the hearing and a sequestration order is made, then their entitlement to costs will be one limited to proving in Mr Cattana's bankruptcy, which seems very unlikely to yield 100 cents in the dollar. Accordingly, the applicants will suffer irremediable prejudice if I grant the adjournment.

  6. In all the circumstances, I refuse the adjournment with costs.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman.

Associate:

Dated:       18 June 2025

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

NSD 65 of 2025

Respondents

Fourth Respondent:

FORTE LENDING PTY LTD

ACN 610 653 462

Fifth Respondent:

HABIT FINANCIAL PTY LTD

ACN 160 809 012
Details
AGLC
Purple Sunset Holdings Pty Ltd v Jones, in the matter of Cattana [2025] FCA 659
Case
[2025] FCA 659
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Purple Sunset Holdings Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought a review of a decision made by the second respondent, who was the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The respondent had cancelled the appellant's visa under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to a criminal conviction. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The appellant applied for an adjournment to prepare its case, obtain legal advice, and file evidence. The court needed to determine whether the appellant had acted with due diligence and whether the adjournment was necessary to ensure a fair trial. The court also needed to assess whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for not filing its evidence in a timely manner.

The court found that ample time had been given to the appellant to prepare its case and that there was no reasonable excuse for the late filing of evidence. The court emphasised that the appellant had not acted with due diligence and that the adjournment would not have resulted in a fair trial. The court refused the adjournment application and ordered the appellant to pay the costs associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The second respondent’s application for adjournment be refused with costs.

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

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.