Samootin v Wagner

[2006] FCA 689

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Samootin v Wagner [2006] FCA 689

ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN V GISELLE MONICA WAGNER & ORS
NSD 1046 OF 2006

STONE J
31 MAY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1046 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN APPLICANT
AND:	GISELLE MONICA WAGNER FIRST RESPONDENT
ADRIAN HOLMES SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 MAY 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The notice of motion be dismissed.

2.        There be no order as to costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD1046 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN APPLICANT
AND:	GISELLE MONICA WAGNER FIRST RESPONDENT
ADRIAN HOLMES SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	31 MAY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I have before me a notice of motion filed in Court on 31 May 2006 whereby the applicant, Ms Samootin, seeks that proceedings under a sequestration order made in the Federal Magistrates Court on 24 May 2006 be stayed until further order. The Federal Magistrate made orders that the sequestration order be stayed for seven days pursuant to section 52(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). That period of seven days expires today. The applicant seeks a further stay to ensure the continuity of stay until the disposition of her appeal against the sequestration order.

2. The applicant appeared for herself in this application.  There has been no appearance for the respondents.  The applicant tells me, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of her statement, that the solicitor for the respondents was advised of this application but, presumably on instructions, declined to appear because of the additional costs that would be involved. 

3. The applicant tells me that the debt underlying the creditor’s petition pursuant to which the sequestration order was made, is a debt arising from costs orders made against the applicant in the course of a long and unsuccessful battle in the New South Wales Supreme Court.  The principal judgment before the New South Wales Supreme Court was given by Palmer J on 1 August 2003 (Samootin v Shea No.2 [2003] NSWSC 695). The claim before his Honour was a claim to set aside a purchase of two properties, being numbers 24 and 26 of Oxford Falls Road, Beacon Hill. It would appear that these properties had been purchased in part with the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home that the applicant and her ex-husband held as joint tenants. In his judgment Palmer J said at [1]-[2]:

   ‘This is a tragic case for all who have been involved in it.  The Plaintiff, Ms Samootin, has developed a fixation that she has been a victim of a fraudulent conspiracy between her ex-husband, the First Defendant, (“Mr Shea”), and the Second Defendant, (“Mr Deans”), whereby she has been cheated out of her home.  She has commenced proceedings in the Family Court,…