Stanford v Bidgee Finance Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed)
[2011] FMCA 487
•23 June 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| STANFORD v BIDGEE FINANCE LIMITED (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) | [2011] FMCA 487 |
| PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Legal representation – request for extension of time to seek representation – refused. |
| Applicant: | JONATHON WOODWARD BEDEL STANFORD |
| Respondent: | BIDGEE FINANCE LIMITED (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 000 362 596) |
| File Number: | SYG 819 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 23 June 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 23 June 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 23 June 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | In Person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | B. Katekar |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson |
ORDERS
Application refused.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 819 of 2011
| JONATHON WOODWARD BEDEL STANFORD |
Applicant
and
| BIDGEE FINANCE LIMITED (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 000 362 596) |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr Stanford, who appears for himself today, has applied for an adjournment of these proceedings so that he can obtain some legal advice. I note, however, that the matter first came before Registrar Hedge of this court on 10 May 2011 when she gave orders in relation to provision of affidavits and evidence and stood the matter over to
24 May 2011.
On 24 May 2011 the matter came before me and I made some further orders which required the applicant to file and serve additional evidence before 3 June 2011. He did not comply with that order, but he did file the evidence on 8 June 2011.
The respondent filed its submissions on 20 June 2011. The difficulty I have with Mr Stanford’s application is that, notwithstanding my request to him, he has not been able to provide me with any information about his search for legal advice or an indication of what assistance that legal advice may provide to him.
There are two issues in this matter. The first is whether or not the applicant has filed his application within time or whether, in fact, the act of bankruptcy occurred before the application was filed in which case the application is of no utility.
The second point is one raised by Mr Stanford in his affidavit which, I am afraid I have to confess, is very confusing but it seems to involve the situation between Mr Stanford and the bankers before the matter came into this court. At first blush these would appear to be matters that are not really relevant to the bankruptcy issue. Namely, whether or not Mr Stanford has a cross-claim, cross-demand or set-off equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt that he was not capable of bringing in the original proceedings as a matter of law.
Without any assistance from Mr Stanford, and noting the objection of the respondent, I am unable to grant his request for an adjournment. The matter will proceed.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date: 28 June 2011
0
0
0