Sharples v Hanson, in the matter of Sharples

[2000] FCA 424

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sharples v Hanson, In the matter of Sharples [2000] FCA 424

RE: TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES; EX PARTE: TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES v PAULINE LEE HANSON as representative of herself and all members of PAULINE HANSON’S ONE NATION (as registered under the Electoral Act 1992 [Qld])
Q 7515 of 1999

DOWSETT J
31 MARCH 2000
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 7515 OF 1999

RE:	TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES A DEBTOR
EX PARTE:	TERRY PARTRICK SHARPLES APPLICANT
AND:	PAULINE LEE HANSON as representative of herself and all members of PAULINE HANSON'S ONE NATION (as registered under the Electoral Act 1992 [Qld]) RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 MARCH 2000
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for an adjournment be refused.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 7515 OF 1999

RE:	TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES A DEBTOR
EX PARTE:	TERRY PARTRICK SHARPLES APPLICANT
AND:	PAULINE LEE HANSON as representative of herself and all members of PAULINE HANSON'S ONE NATION (as registered under the Electoral Act 1992 [Qld]) RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	31 MARCH 2000
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. At the commencement of this hearing, the applicant asserted that there are defects in the form of the bankruptcy notice sufficient to render it void.  The criticisms are twofold.  The first is that the creditor is described as "Pauline Lee Hanson as representative of herself and all members of Pauline Hanson's One Nation (as registered under the Electoral Act 1992 [Qld])".  This rather daunting description is derived from the way in which Ms Hanson was, in fact, described in her capacity as second defendant in proceedings in the Supreme Court and as second respondent in an appeal in connection with those proceedings.  The bankruptcy notice is based upon an order for costs made as a result of those appeal proceedings.  It seems to me that it can be no basis for complaint that the judgment creditor has described herself in the way prescribed by the rules of the Court in which the relevant judgment was given.  I see no substance in this criticism.

2. The second criticism is that the bankruptcy notice inaccurately describes Ms Hanson's address as “4 Wilson Lane, Ipswich in the State of Queensland”.  The applicant has conceded that there is no evidence before the Court which suggests that at any relevant time, such address was not Ms Hanson’s address.  He has asked for an adjournment in order to obtain such evidence.  However, when the matter was last before the Court on 11 February, directions were given as to the conduct of this matter.  It was made clear to the applicant that he would be expected to have his material in order by today.  He says that he has been busy with other litigation.  There may be some truth in this, but it was made clear to him that this matter would be proceeding today.  Further, he has, in the meantime, been able to file at least one affidavit.  One would not have thought that the question of the judgment creditor's address would be a complex one.  I can see no good reason for his failure to deal with it since the last hearing.  In those circumstances I am not willing to allow him an adjournment.  On the evidence, there is no substance in this criticism of the bankruptcy notice. 

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:             17 April 2000

The Applicant appeared In Person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Watkins Stokes Templeton
Date of Hearing:	31 March 2000
Date of Judgment:	31 March 2000