Trkulja, Milorad aka Michael Trkulja v Abeyratne, William

Case [1998] FCA 1677


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

VG 7700  OF   1998

BETWEEN:

MILORAD TRKULJA (also known as MICHAEL TRKULJA)
APPLICANT

AND:

WILLIAM BERNARD ABEYRATNE (as trustee of the bankrupt estate of the applicant) and STATE OF VICTORIA and JOHN COSGRIFF
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE(S):

NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 DECEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is struck out.

2.The applicant, Milorad Trkulja, is to pay the costs of the second respondent, State of Victoria.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF

THE STATE OF VICTORIA

 VG 7700 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

MILORAD TRKULJA (also known as MICHAEL TRKULJA)
APPLICANT

AND:

WILLIAM BERNARD ABEYRATNE (as trustee of the bankrupt estate of the applicant) and STATE OF VICTORIA and JOHN COSGRIFF
RESPONDENTS

JUDGE(S):

NORTH J

DATE:

18 DECEMBER 1998

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This application under s 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was initially brought by the applicant, Mr Trkulja, to force his trustee in bankruptcy, William Bernard Abeyratne, the first respondent, to permit him to pursue certain legal action in the Supreme Court of Victoria. In due course, Mr Abeyratne brought proceedings to effectuate that result and I have determined those proceedings today. The reasons for judgment set out the full circumstances of the case. In view of Mr Abeyratne’s application, Mr Trkulja did not seek to pursue this application. In this application, the State of Victoria was joined as a respondent and it seeks its costs. Because Mr Trkulja has failed to pay legal costs in a number of other proceedings involving the State of Victoria, the State of Victoria sought an order that Mr Abeyratne pay the costs of the present application.

  2. In my view, the applicant must pay the costs of the State of Victoria. I am not satisfied that Mr Abeyratne should also be liable to pay those costs.

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

Associate:

Dated:             18 December 1998

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr G Hardy
Solicitor for the Applicant: Frank N Libman
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr D Masel
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Victorian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 30 November - 2 December 1998
Date of Judgment: 18 December 1998
Details
AGLC
Trkulja, Milorad aka Michael Trkulja v Abeyratne, William [1998] FCA 1677
Case
[1998] FCA 1677
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Milorad Trkulja, also known as Michael Trkulja, versus William Abeyratne and the State of Victoria was heard before the Federal Court of Australia. The central dispute involved allegations of contempt against Mr. Trkulja, primarily based on his social media activities which were said to have breached orders made by the Family Court of Australia. The proceedings were initiated by Mr. Abeyratne, and the State of Victoria was joined as the second respondent on the grounds of being responsible for the Family Court.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the conduct of Mr. Trkulja constituted contempt of court and if the application was properly filed under the Federal Court's jurisdiction. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the application was frivolous or vexatious, which could affect the costs orders.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the application was indeed frivolous and vexatious. The court determined that Mr. Trkulja's conduct, which was the subject of the contempt allegations, was not of the kind that warranted the intervention of the Federal Court. The court highlighted that the appropriate forum for such matters was the Family Court, which had the jurisdiction to address and enforce its own orders. Consequently, the application was struck out, and Mr. Trkulja was ordered to pay the costs incurred by the State of Victoria.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is struck out.

2. The applicant, Milorad Trkulja, is to pay the costs of the second respondent, State of Victoria.

Note:

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.