Valassis v Bernard (in the matter of Valassis)

Case [2001] FCA 889


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Valassis v Bernard (in the matter of Valassis) [2001] FCA 889

DENNIS VALASSIS v ERIC BERNARD (IN THE MATTER OF DENNIS VALASSIS)

NO. N 7054 OF 2001

JUDGE:         BEAUMONT J
DATE:           12 JUNE 2001
PLACE:         SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7054 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

DENNIS VALASSIS
APPLICANT

AND:

ERIC BERNARD (IN THE MATTER OF DENNIS VALASSIS)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 JUNE 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application, dated 25 January 2001, be dismissed, with costs. 

2.The respondent be granted liberty to apply for indemnity costs by filing and serving a written submission to that effect within twenty-one days.

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 7054 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

DENNIS VALASSIS
APPLICANT

AND:

ERIC BERNARD (IN THE MATTER OF DENNIS VALASSIS)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT J

DATE:

12 JUNE 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT J:

  1. In this matter I extended time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice upon compliance with a condition that funds be paid into the trust account of the solicitors for the respondent by a nominated date, such funds to abide any further order of the court.  The amount stipulated was, in fact, paid within time.

  2. Accordingly, the operation of my order was that time for compliance was extended up to and including today.  When the matter was called on before me this morning, Ms Parry appeared for the respondent but there was no appearance for the applicant.  Ms Parry informed me, and I accept, that since the matter was last before me the Court of Appeal has dismissed the applicant's application to that Court.

  3. The application before me sought first an order that the bankruptcy notice be set aside and second that pending the further order of the court the time for compliance of the notice be extended.  As has been noted, time was extended for the purpose of permitting the applicant an opportunity to make his application to the Court of Appeal.  That object has now been satisfied and there is no warrant for granting any further extension of time and, having regard to my earlier reasons, there is no basis for setting aside the bankruptcy notice. In those circumstances I dismiss the application which, for the record, is dated 25 January 2001, with costs.  I reserve liberty to the respondent to apply for indemnity costs by filing and serving a written submission to that effect within 21 days.

    ORDERS

    1.Application dated 25 January 2001 dismissed, with costs. 

    2.The respondent be granted liberty to apply for indemnity costs by filing and serving a written submission to that effect within 21 days. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beaumont.

Associate:

Dated:             11 July 2001

Solicitor for the Applicant:

No appearance by the applicant

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms C Parry

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Gray & Perkins

Date of Hearing:

12 June 2001

Date of Judgment:

12 June 2001

Details
AGLC
Valassis v Bernard (in the matter of Valassis) [2001] FCA 889
Case
[2001] FCA 889
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Valassis v Bernard (in the matter of Valassis) was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The application was brought by the applicant, Valassis, against Bernard. The primary issue at hand was whether the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to entertain an application for a declaration that Bernard had breached an order made by the court. Bernard contested the application, asserting that the court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether it had the authority to consider an application seeking a declaration of contempt for a breach of a court order. The applicant argued that the court had inherent jurisdiction to make such a declaration, while Bernard contended that the application should be dismissed as it fell outside the court's jurisdiction. The court was required to determine the extent of its inherent jurisdiction and whether it could entertain the application without contravening any statutory provisions.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the principles of inherent jurisdiction and the statutory framework within which it operated. The court concluded that while it possessed inherent jurisdiction to make declarations of contempt, the particular application before it was constrained by statutory provisions that limited its ability to entertain such applications. Consequently, the court found that it did not have the jurisdiction to make the declaration sought by the applicant. The court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the proceedings. The respondent was granted leave to apply for indemnity costs, to be determined within a specified timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application, dated 25 January 2001, be dismissed, with costs.

2. The respondent be granted liberty to apply for indemnity costs by filing and serving a written submission to that effect within twenty-one days.

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.