Raptis v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer
[2011] FMCA 525
•29 June 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| RAPTIS v WORKERS COMPENSATION NOMINAL INSURER | [2011] FMCA 525 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Application for review of sequestration order made by Registrar – non-appearance by applicant. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Rules, r.13.03C(1)(c) Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules, r.7.06 |
| Applicant: | CONSTANTINE RAPTIS |
| Respondent: | WORKERS COMPENSATION NOMINAL INSURER |
| File Number: | SYG 1117 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Barnes FM |
| Hearing date: | 29 June 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 29 June 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | de Mestre & Company |
ORDERS
There being no appearance by the applicant bankrupt, the application for review filed on 6 May 2011 be dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
The creditor’s costs in relation to the review application fixed in the amount of $933.60 be paid from the estate of the debtor in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1117 of 2010
| CONSTANTINE RAPTIS |
Applicant
And
| WORKERS COMPENSATION NOMINAL INSURER |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from Transcript)
This is an application filed on 6 May 2011 by Mr Raptis seeking review of a sequestration order made by a Registrar of this court on 15 April 2011. The matter came before me for directions on 31 May 2011. On that day Mr Raptis appeared. The matter was listed for hearing today at 10.15 am. Orders were made for Mr Raptis to file and serve any further affidavit evidence, including evidence of compliance with r.7.06 of the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules on or before 10 June 2011. Mr Raptis did not comply with that direction. In fact the respondent, Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (the petitioning creditor) filed an affidavit of notification on 20 June 2011. I am satisfied Mr Raptis is aware of the hearing date.
Mr Raptis was not present at the time that the matter was listed for hearing. Nor is he present now, some 15 minutes later. There is no explanation for his failure to appear.
In these circumstances the creditor, the respondent to the review proceedings, seeks that the matter be dismissed and costs. I consider it is appropriate to make orders dismissing the proceedings for non-appearance pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules and to order costs as sought.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Barnes FM
Date: 8 July 2011
0
0
2