Van Haeff, Robert William Franklin v Binder Hamlyn and Co

[1982] FCA 320

BANKRUPTCY - appllcation for stay of order and

injunction pending appeal to the Privy Council -

judge making sequestratlon order a "fugitlve from
justice" - assertions that relevant l a w s and

Courts invalid - application dismissed as irrational

l

ROBERT WILLIAM FFUUWLIN VAN HAEFF V	BINDER
HAMLYN & CO AND ANOTHER
No. G 63 of 1982
FITZGERALD J. BRISBANE
14 MAY 1982
IN T€IE FEDERAL COURT	OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	No. G 65 of 1982
GENERAL DIVISION	1

ROBERT WILLIAM FRANKLIN VAN HAEFF

Appllcant

BINDER HAMLYN & CO AND ANOTHER

Respondents

JCTDGE MAKING ORDER:	FITZGERALD J.
DATE OF ORDER:	14 MAY 1982
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The applicatlon is dlsmissed.

2.   The Applicant pay the Respondents costs

of and incidental to the application.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G 65 of 1982

DIVISION GENERAL )

ROBERT WILLIAM FRANKLIN VAN HAEFF

Applicant

BINDER HAMtyN & CO AND ANOTHER

!

Respondents

FITZGERALD J	-
14 MAY 1982

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, the Supreme Court of Queensland

in its Federal Bankruptcy Jurisdiction on	8 March 1982
made a sequestration order against the estate	of the
applicant bankrupt on the petltlon	of one of the
respondents, James Martln Munro. Mr	C.W. Lawson was

appointed trustee of the bankrupt's estate.

The relief sought 1 s a stay of the order and an

injunction upon the respondents until the valldlty of

the order is ruled on by the Privy council and the

return of property taken or security for its re-delivery.
Various determinations are sought in relation to matters

which are said could arlse.

P

After a brlef statement by the bankrupt, I was,

at his request, addressed at length by Mr Soegemeler

on the bankrupt's behalf. Mr Soegemeier also informed

me later in the	proceedmgs that he represented the
Australian Personal Freedom Party which	clams to be

a creditor of the bankrupt. Mr Soegemeler told me that
an attempt to appeal to the High Court was refused and
that, although it is doubtful whether this is the right
court and that the High Court may be the correct court,

in the clrcumstances the proceedings are brought to thls

court, and I was referred to the provislons In the

Constitution, the Judiciary Act and the Federal Court Act.

I was also told it was recognised that it was

impossible to appeal to the Privy Council from
proceedings in the federal jurlsdlctlon except by
leave of Her Majesty herself, and that there had been

communications wlth Her Majesty with respect to the

matter with	a request for appeal by leave to Her
Majesty in Council.

A prlmary submisslon of the bankrupt is that

the judge who made the order 1 s a fugitive from justlce

and was unable to make the order. Varlous proceedlngs,
in 1976 were referred to and there are in the papers
what are described as warrants lssued against
Mr Justice Dunn by Mr Soegemeier as the de jure

Attorney-General of the de lure Commonwealth of

Australia. Complaint was also made about the trustee and perhaps the creditor and there are allegations in the materlal and perhaps in the submlssions about the valid existence of laws, courts and Judges relevant to these proceedings.

In my opinion, there 1s no ratlonal basis shown

for the allegations. The application fails. I order

that it	be dismissed with costs.
I certify that r h ~ s and the 2 prrccding

I

pages are a true copy of t he reasons for

Judgment herem of the Sours

l+Sk?k

Dated