Re Edelsten, G.W. Ex parte Donnelly, M.C. v Edelsten, G.W. & ors Summary

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 4-04 9 2

JUDGMENf NO, -J

EXERCISING FEDERAL JURISDICTION
IN BANKRUPTCY

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE AUSTRALIAN

CAPITAL TERRITORY

RE: GEOFFREY WALTER EDELSTEN

Bankrupt

EX PARTE: MAX CHRISTOPHER DONNELLY

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ESTATE OF
GEOFFREY WALTER EDELSTEN

Applicant

AND: GEOFFREY WALTER EDELSTEN AND OTHERS

Respondents

COURT : NORTHROP J
PLACE : MELBOURNE
DATE : 3 JUNE 1992

FEDERAL COURT OF 12 JUN 1992
AUSTRALIA PRINClP*C REGISTRY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I propose to allow the amendments to the application. In

by Mr Shand for the applicant, that the matters raised by the

doing this I again make the comment that this matter,
unfortunately, has been marred by a lack of proper
documentation in the presentation of the paper work to support
the application. Any application of this kind normally would
have had included in it the claims relating to the taking of
accounts or profits or possibly damages resulting from the

unlawful use of property by a person, not the owner, nor

entitled to it. I also take the view, and this is confirmed

amendment will not be raised as an issue of fact or of law

unless and until favourable orders are made on the application

in relation to the property. Thereafter the Court would be

asked to give directions as to how the question of accounting

or damages or profits should be determined. This is a

procedure which is quite common in this Court and is one which
is done from time to time, particularly in the area of
intellectual property. At the moment, despite the delays,
despite the frequent amendments being made, I see no way in
which these amendments will delay or prejudice the hearing of
this application or cause harm to the respondents insofar as

the subsequent position is in relation to additional remedies

if they fail on their main case. Accordingly, leave is

granted to amend the application to the form set out in the
Further Amended Application dated 1 June 1992 which I now
direct be filed in Court.

I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr

Justice R.M. Northrop.

Associate: l. L !

Date: 77- 1772

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case, heard by the Federal Court of Australia, involves an application by Max Christopher Donnelly, acting as the trustee for the estate of Geoffrey Walter Edelsten, who is a bankrupt. The applicant seeks to amend their application in relation to the bankruptcy proceedings against the respondent, Geoffrey Walter Edelsten, and potentially other respondents. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant should be allowed to amend their application, despite the lack of proper documentation and frequent amendments.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend their application, considering the lack of documentation and the potential delay and prejudice to the respondents. The court considered that the amendment would not prejudice the respondents unless and until favourable orders were made on the application regarding the property. The court also noted that this procedure was common, particularly in intellectual property cases, and that the delays and frequent amendments would not harm the respondents if they failed on their main case.

The court held that the amendment would not delay or prejudice the hearing of the application or cause harm to the respondents. Consequently, the court granted leave for the applicant to amend their application to the form set out in the Further Amended Application dated 1 June 1992.

The court certified that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice R.M. Northrop. The final orders of the court allowed the applicant to amend their application as proposed.

Re Edelsten, G.W. Ex parte Donnelly, M.C. v Edelsten, G.W. & ors

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established