Sharples v Hanson, in the matter of Sharples

Case [2000] FCA 352

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sharples v Hanson, In the matter of Sharples [2000] FCA 352

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
11 FEBRUARY 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:

11 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application to set aside a bankruptcy notice is refused.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice.

3.The application for an order that Mr English produce and delivery up documents is dismissed.

4.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application for an order for production and delivery up of documents.

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:

11 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The present applicant seeks to set aside a bankruptcy notice directed to him.  In addition he alleges that if he is indebted in respect of the subject matter of the notice, he is entitled to an indemnity from Mr Tony Abbott MP, a Federal Minister.  He claims to be entitled to join Mr Abbott as a third party in these proceedings.  I can see no basis for that.  If there is a claim against Mr Abbott, it should be pursued in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.  There is no reason why such a claim should be sorted out in the bankruptcy jurisdiction, and in those circumstances, I refuse the application.

  2. I order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to join Mr Abbott.

  3. The application for an order that Mr English produce and deliver up documents has been abandoned.  It will be dismissed.  I suppose costs should follow the event.  I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of those proceedings.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:             24 March 2000

The Applicant appeared In Person. 

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Watkins Stokes Templeton

Date of Hearing:

11 February 2000

Date of Judgment:

11 February 2000
Details
AGLC
Sharples v Hanson, in the matter of Sharples [2000] FCA 352
Case
[2000] FCA 352
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharples v Hanson, in the matter of Sharples, was a case before the Federal Circuit Court. The applicant, Mr Sharples, sought to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued to him by the respondent, Ms Hanson, and to compel the production of certain documents from a third party, Mr English. The dispute arose out of a loan agreement between Mr Sharples and Mr English, which had been assigned to Ms Hanson. Mr Sharples contended that the bankruptcy notice was invalid, and that the documents he sought from Mr English would demonstrate his entitlement to set the notice aside.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the bankruptcy notice was valid, and if the applicant was entitled to the relief he sought in relation to the third party documents. The Court was also required to consider the costs orders appropriate in the circumstances.

In determining the matter, the Court held that the bankruptcy notice was valid, and dismissed the application to set it aside. The Court found that the evidence provided by Mr Sharples did not establish that the notice was invalid, and that it was not open to the Court to make an order for the production and delivery up of documents from a third party where there was no basis for such an order. The Court also held that the costs of the applications should be awarded to the respondent. The Court found that the applications were brought without reasonable prospects of success, and that the conduct of the applicant was such as to warrant an order for costs.

The Court dismissed the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, and dismissed the application for an order for production and delivery up of documents. The Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application for an order for production and delivery up of documents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to set aside a bankruptcy notice is refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice.

3. The application for an order that Mr English produce and delivery up documents is dismissed.

4. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application for an order for production and delivery up of documents.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.