Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd

[2011] FCA 31

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 31

Citation:		Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 31
Parties:		ANGELO PETER RUSSO v PRIVATE FUNDS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD and ANNETTE JOY CONN
File number:		SAD 8 of 2011
Judge:		BESANKO J
Date of judgment:		28 January 2011
Date of hearing:	28 January 2011
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords.
Number of paragraphs:	4
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr L Rowley
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Madsen Rowley
Counsel for the Trustee:	Mr A Kelly

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 8 of 2011

BETWEEN:

ANGELO PETER RUSSO
Applicant

AND:

PRIVATE FUNDS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
First Respondent

ANNETTE JOY CONN
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 JANUARY 2011
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Notice of Motion dated 21 January 2011 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents of and incidental to the Notice of Motion dated 21 January 2011.  

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 8 of 2011

BETWEEN:

ANGELO PETER RUSSO
Applicant

AND:

PRIVATE FUNDS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
First Respondent

ANNETTE JOY CONN
Second Respondent

JUDGE:	BESANKO J
DATE:	28 JANUARY 2011
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a stay of a sequestration order made by a Registrar of the Court on 29 September 2010. The applicant made an application for review of the order and that application was heard by a Federal Magistrate in December 2010. The Federal Magistrate refused the application for review (Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] FMCA 8).

2. The application for a stay is made by notice of notion dated 21 January 2011. It is supported by an affidavit of the applicant sworn on 21 January 2011. The notice of notion came on for mention or hearing before me on Tuesday 25 January 2011. I adjourned the hearing of the application in order to give the applicant the opportunity to seek legal advice.

3. The application has come on before me again this morning. Mr Russo appears in person. The application is opposed by the first and the second respondents and by the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

4. The application for a stay is made pursuant to O 52 r 17 of the Federal Court Rules. I have had regard to the authorities of Coleman v Lazy Days Investments Pty Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 297, Freeman v National Australia Bank Ltd [2002] FCA 427, and the other authorities referred to in the Practice Book. There are two issues to be considered. First, I must consider whether the applicant for a stay has established an arguable case. Secondly, I must consider the balance of convenience. Reference was made to various paragraphs in the Federal Magistrate’s reasons for judgment and I refer in particular to those paragraphs which deal with the value of the Beaumont property (see [54]) and with the amount paid into the Supreme Court (see [61]). I have read the reasons of the Federal Magistrate carefully and I am not satisfied that a case of arguable error has been established. In addition, the parties have referred me to various matters which might be considered relevant to the balance of convenience. I am not satisfied that even had a case of arguable error been shown, the balance of convenience would favour the granting of a stay. In those circumstances, I refuse the application for a stay and the notice of motion dated 21 January 2011 is dismissed. I order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko.

Associate:

Dated:       28 January 2011