Teese v Woodgate - [2003] FCA 1224

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Teese v Woodgate [2003] FCA 1224
ANN CAROLYN TEESE v GILES GEOFFREY WOODGATE
N 7311 of 2003
SACKVILLE J
SYDNEY
16 OCTOBER 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N7311 OF 2003

BETWEEN:  ANN CAROLYN TEESE
  Applicant
AND:  GILES GEOFFREY WOODGATE
  Respondent

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for interlocutory relief be dismissed.
2.The bankrupt pay the costs of the application.
3.The costs may be recovered by the trustee after the estate of the bankruptcy.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7311 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

ANN CAROLYN TEESE
Applicant

AND:

GILES GEOFFREY WOODGATE
Respondent

JUDGE:

SACKVILLE J

DATE:

16 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by a bankrupt seeking an order in the following terms: “[t]hat all sales and other realisations of property in the bankrupt estate…including sale by auction on 16 October 2003 or otherwise of 3/39 Melrose Place Clovelly, be stayed and/or restrained until further Order.”
A sequestration order was made against the bankrupt as long ago as 20 August 2002. The matter has a long and complex history that is not possible to recount having regard to the time constraints. In any event, much of the history is set out in the judgment of Lindgren J in Teese v Clinch Neville Long [2003] FCA 274.
The administration of the bankruptcy has been marked by repeated unsuccessful applications by the bankrupt. These, naturally enough, have attracted costs orders which have led to a very substantial amount of costs being incurred by the trustee in the administration of the estate.
The present proceedings were filed yesterday, 15 October 2003. As Duty Judge I was told that the parties would be ready to proceed at 4.00 pm yesterday. Because there were difficulties in holding a hearing at that time, I listed the matter for 9.45 am this morning. Shortly after that time the matter was called for hearing. Mr Knaggs appeared for the bankrupt.
Mr Knaggs indicated that he was not ready to proceed at that time and requested an adjournment. After some debate, the matter was adjourned until 12 noon. Mr Knaggs was not present at that time but arrived shortly thereafter. He read an affidavit sworn by the bankrupt in support of the application for a stay.
It has not been easy to ascertain the basis upon which a stay of the auction has been sought. It is necessary to remember that the auction is scheduled for 6.00 pm today. There is, therefore, urgency about dealing with the application and, of course, in delivering a judgment. It may be that the circumstances of urgency have made it difficult for the bankrupt to formulate a case with precision. So far as I was able to follow it, the main…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Teese v Woodgate

Details

AGLC: Teese v Woodgate [2003] FCA 1224
Case: [2003] FCA 1224
Decision Date: 16 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Teese v Woodgate was a case heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, involving a dispute between the applicant, Teese, and the respondent, Woodgate. The matter centred around an application for interlocutory relief in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding. Teese sought a temporary injunction to prevent the respondent from enforcing a judgment debt against certain assets of the bankrupt estate. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it was an abuse of process and that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant such relief.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case for interlocutory relief, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court also needed to consider the potential prejudice to the respondent if the injunction was granted, and whether the applicant had acted in good faith. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the application was an abuse of process, and if the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to support the application.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the applicant had not established a prima facie case for interlocutory relief, as the evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate that the assets in question were exempt from the enforcement of the judgment debt. The court also held that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction, as the respondent would suffer significant prejudice if the application was successful. Furthermore, the court found that the application was an abuse of process, as the applicant had not acted in good faith and had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for interlocutory relief, and ordered that the bankrupt pay the costs of the application, which could be recovered by the trustee after the estate of the bankruptcy.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for interlocutory relief be dismissed.

2. The bankrupt pay the costs of the application.

3. The costs may be recovered by the trustee after the estate of the bankruptcy.

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

SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SACKVILLE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N7311 OF 2003

JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 OCTOBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7311 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	ANN CAROLYN TEESE Applicant
AND:	GILES GEOFFREY WOODGATE Respondent
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE:	16 OCTOBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY