Re Bagshaw, Leigh Gordon Ex Parte Bagshaw, Leigh Gordon

[1996] FCA 916

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA     )
GENERAL DIVISION  )
   No. QB 1998 of 1993
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE             )
STATE OF QUEENSLAND  )

RE:LEIGH GORDON BAGSHAW

EX PARTE:LEIGH GORDON BAGSHAW

Applicant

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:     Spender J

DATE OF ORDER:          23 September 1996

WHERE MADE:              Brisbane

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application filed 27 August 1996 is dismissed.

1. The costs of the appearance on behalf of the trustees in bankruptcy be paid by the applicant, those costs to be taxed if not agreed.

NOTE:     Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA     )
GENERAL DIVISION  )
   No. QB 1998 of 1993
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE             )
STATE OF QUEENSLAND  )

RE:LEIGH GORDON BAGSHAW

EX PARTE:LEIGH GORDON BAGSHAW

CORAM:    Spender J
DATE:     23 September 1996
PLACE:    Brisbane

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I am dealing at the moment with an application filed on 27 August 1996 by Leigh Gordon Bagshaw.  The application seeks extensive orders.  It appears that the application dated 13 August 1996 was filed by the applicant in person, notwithstanding that at the foot of it it is said:

"This application is filed by Hayes Partners Solicitors, on behalf of Leigh Gordon Bagshaw."

The application says:

"It is intended to serve this Application on the First, Second and Third Named Respondents. "

The first respondents are the trustees of the estate of the bankrupt; the second is a solicitor, John Joseph Scott; and the third respondent is named as Westpac Banking Corporation Limited.

The first order sought is the proceedings be transferred from the Queensland District Registry to the New South Wales District Registry.

Secondly, "That these proceedings" (whatever that reference may mean) "be heard in conjunction with Action Number G684 of 1994 of Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales at Sydney"; and then further orders which include that the trustees be restrained until further order from admitting as a provable debt a claim on behalf of the second named respondent for an amount of $3,106,893.88 made by proof of debt verified by John Joseph Scott on the 26th day of October 1994; and from admitting a proof of debt claimed by Westpac for $351,446.56 made by proof of debt verified by Ralph Geoffrey Catlin on 2 May 1994.

The application also seeks an order that the time provided by s 54(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 for the date of filing of a statement of affairs be extended to a time expiring on 13 April 1994 and various other orders.

When the matter was called on today there was no appearance on behalf of the debtor.

Mr Cop, of M.J. Murray and Associates, solicitor for the trustees, appears.  I showed to him a facsimile which had been received in the Registry on 23 September, today, from the debtor which says:

"I tried all day on Friday, 20th September to contact Jefferson Stevenson & Co to speak to Mr Jefferson as Mr Stevenson is away.  I also contacted the solicitors acting for Jefferson and Stevenson.  My solicitor Mr Greg Stevens from SA has requested that the decision for Bankruptcy transfer be set aside for a further two weeks awaiting Jefferson & Stevenson's application.  The Government Trustee ITSA QLD Mr Carrick said to notify the Court that the application had not been submitted in return. "

Whatever this means, the position simply is that nobody on behalf of Mr Bagshaw or Mr Bagshaw himself has appeared on the application today.  Taking this at its best, it is an application for a further adjournment for two weeks for that application.  No basis has been made out, it seems to me, for any such adjournment.

The difficulties of contacting various people that Mr Bagshaw refers to does not seem to me to be a basis for adjournment, particularly since the persons he is attempting to contact are on the other side and, as one would think, be minded to resist the orders sought in the application.

The simple fact is that Mr Bagshaw has not been prosecuting his application in a way that permits the Court to make the requested adjournment that he seeks.

In all the circumstances it seems to me that I ought to accede to the application made on behalf of Jefferson and Stevenson and dismiss the application.

The application filed 27 August 1996 is dismissed.

It seems to me also that I ought, in accordance with the principal order, order that the costs of the appearance on behalf of the trustees be paid by the applicant, those costs to be taxed if not agreed.

I certify that this and the  preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender.

Associate

Date:  23 September 1996

No appearance on behalf of the debtor.

Solicitors for the trustees of the

Estate of Leith Gordon Bagshaw  :         F N Cop of M J Murray & Assoc.

Date of Hearing  :    23 September 1996