Ramirez v Ramirez
[2009] FMCA 724
•28 July 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| RAMIREZ v RAMIREZ | [2009] FMCA 724 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Annulment application – attempt to revisit issues already dealt with by the Court – summary dismissal. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966, s.153B Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) |
| Applicant: | HECTOR ALFONSO RAMIREZ |
| Respondent: | CARLOS ENRIQUE RAMIREZ |
| File Number: | SYG 1745 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing date: | 28 July 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 28 July 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
The Applicant appeared in person
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr A N Williams |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sydney Business Lawyers |
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
The application is dismissed summarily with costs.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1745 of 2009
| HECTOR ALFONSO RAMIREZ |
Applicant
And
| CARLOS ENRIQUE RAMIREZ |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
I have before me an application filed on 22 July 2009 which purports to seek orders annulling the bankruptcy of Hector Alfonso Ramirez. The application is supported by two affidavits by Mr Ramirez, which are somewhat confusing in that although he disputes the judgment debt of the petitioning creditor, he also asserts an intention to make payments to him and seeks time to do so. He also asserts that he has limited funds in order to meet his financial commitments.
The application is opposed by the petitioning creditor. The position is that a sequestration and other orders were made by this Court on 7 July 2009. Bankruptcy proceedings under the orders were stayed for
21 days and I understand from the applicant that he investigated the possibility of appealing to the Federal Court, but he was for some reason unable to complete the necessary documents. He has apparently been referred back to this Court.
There is no power in this Court to further extend the stay on the operation of the sequestration order. Although Mr Ramirez continues to dispute the judgment debt supporting the sequestration order, he has advanced nothing new. The sequestration order was made by this Court after a contested hearing at which the debtor appeared. Although he is dissatisfied with the judgment of the Supreme Court establishing the judgment debt, he has not appealed against it. There is no proper basis advanced to go behind the judgment of the Supreme Court.
I have considered whether the application might properly be dealt with as an application for annulment under s.153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The procedural requirements for such an application have not yet been met. While those procedural defects could be overcome, in my view, the annulment application is doomed to fail and should be dismissed summarily. The debtor has had opportunities to advance his arguments in the judgment debt proceedings in the Supreme Court and in the earlier bankruptcy proceedings in this Court. He has nothing new to put to the Court. On the available evidence, I am not satisfied that he is solvent. He asserts procedural unfairness in the bankruptcy proceedings in this Court, but there is nothing to support that assertion.
I will order that the application be dismissed summarily as disclosing no arguable case, pursuant to rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). I will order that the application be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM
Associate:
Date: 30 July 2009
0
0
2