SLAVESKI v Rotstein and Associates

[2014] FCCA 1343

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SLAVESKI v ROTSTEIN & ASSOCIATES [2014] FCCA 1343

Catchwords:
BANKRUPCTY – Stay of sequestration order – application dismissed.

Applicant: LJUPCO SLAVESKI

Respondent: ROTSTEIN & ASSOCIATES

File Number: MLG 721 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Riethmuller

Hearing date: 17 June 2014

Date of Last Submission: 17 June 2014

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 17 June 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Huang

Solicitors for the Applicant: Rotstein & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: No appearance

ORDERS

1. The application filed on 4 June 2014 be dismissed.

2. The Respondent’s costs be paid from the estate of the Applicant fixed in the sum of $271.00. 

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT MELBOURNE

MLG 721 of 2013

LJUPCO SLAVESKI

Applicant

And

ROTSTEIN & ASSOCIATES

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a stay of a sequestration order.  The stay application does not annex a proposed noticed of appeal, nor has a notice of appeal been filed.  A sequestration order was made on 29 May.  The appeal period expires shortly.  The applicant raises a number of matters that have been raised in the proceedings prior to today, none of which have been successful.

2. The applicant raises questions that were dealt with in claims between him and his solicitor, Mr Rotstein, which have been the subject of various previous judgments.  It does not appear to me that the applicant has not identified a specific ground of appeal upon which he has an arguable case. He has neither:

   a)identified grounds;

   b)nor provided a draft notice of appeal;

   c)nor filed an actual notice of appeal;

   d)nor is there is no evidence before me that other proceedings are pending with respect to any cross-claim that he may have against Mr Rotstein;

   e)nor is there any pending application to overturn the judgment that forms the basis of the orders for sequestration.

3. The applicant does not address what prejudice he would suffer if a stay order is not made.  There is nothing in the material about his financial circumstances. 

4. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that he has established the requisite matters to justify a stay of the sequestration order.  I therefore dismiss the current application for a stay.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Riethmuller

Associate: 

Date:  4 July 2014