Stankovic v The Hills Shire Council

[2012] FCA 521

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stankovic v The Hills Shire Council [2012] FCA 521

Citation:	Stankovic v The Hills Shire Council [2012] FCA 521
Parties:	MICHAEL STANKOVIC v THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL, TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE and JASON SHANE CRONAN
File number:	NSD 690 of 2011
Judge:	EMMETT J
Date of judgment:	4 May 2012
Date of hearing:	4 May 2012
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	2
Counsel for the applicant:	The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the first respondent:	M Condon
Solicitor for the first respondent:	M Pearce of The Hills Shire Council
Counsel for the second and third respondents:	D Ash
Solicitor for the second and third respondents:	Watson & Watson
Solicitor for Kent Attorneys:	T Orlizki of Kent Attorneys

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 690 of 2011

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL STANKOVIC
Applicant

AND:

THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL
First Respondent

TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE
Second Respondent

JASON SHANE CRONAN
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2012
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application for an adjournment of today’s hearing be refused.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 690 of 2011

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL STANKOVIC
Applicant

AND:

THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL
First Respondent

TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE
Second Respondent

JASON SHANE CRONAN
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	EMMETT J
DATE:	4 MAY 2012
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This proceeding, commenced on 19 May 2011, is an application to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from a sequestration order made in respect of the estate of the applicant on 12 May 2009.  When the matter was before me on 9 March 2012, the applicant was represented by a solicitor, Mr Spencer Ferrier.  It was intimated at that stage that some time was required so that an application could be made to the Family Court for the release of funds to enable the applicant to retain solicitors to represent him.  I asked whether, if I listed the application for an extension of time for today, that would give the applicant sufficient time for him to make his application to the Family Court.  The response given was that the applicant was prepared to accept short notice because of the nature of the matter.  I made clear on 9 March 2012 that this matter would proceed on 4 May 2012, that is, today. 

2. When the matter was called on today, the applicant applied for an adjournment of the hearing.  He relies on an affidavit sworn on 26 April 2012, in which he says that, on 30 March 2012, a judge of the Family Court of Australia ordered that the sum of $150,000 be released to him.  On 10 April 2012, he attended the office of a firm of solicitors.  He collected a cheque in the sum of $150,000, which he banked on 13 April 2012.  He says that, on 24 April 2012, he met not Mr Ferrier, who as a courtesy to the Court attended this morning, but another solicitor. The applicant said that he wanted to instruct the other solicitor to act for him today.  He was told that the other solicitor could not be available to appear for him today because of another commitment.  The applicant says that he wants that solicitor to appear for him, because she has a strong understanding of his case and is able to present it in a clear and concise way.  In the circumstances outlined, I do not regard that evidence as constituting any basis for vacating today’s hearing. The application for an adjournment should be rejected.

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

Associate:

Dated: 25 May 2012