Vats v Cummings

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Vats v Cummings [2015] FCA 69

Citation:	Vats v Cummings [2015] FCA 69
Parties:	PRAVEEN VATS v JOHN CUMMINGS
File number:	VID 20 of 2015
Judge:	NORTH J
Date of judgment:	2 February 2015
Legislation:	Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 178
Date of hearing:	2 February 2015
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	10
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms N Angelo of Harris Carlson Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 20 of 2015

BETWEEN:	PRAVEEN VATS Applicant
AND:	JOHN CUMMINGS Respondent

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 FEBRUARY 2015
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is refused.

2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 20 of 2015

BETWEEN:	PRAVEEN VATS Applicant
AND:	JOHN CUMMINGS Respondent

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE:	2 FEBRUARY 2015
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Dr Vats filed an originating application on 20 January 2015 seeking relief which was wide ranging connected with his bankruptcy.  A sequestration order was made in respect of his estate, and he sought review before the Federal Circuit Court of the making of that order.  On 13 August 2014, Judge Burchardt refused the application. 

2. A number of the claims made in the originating application seem to relate to steps taken in the course of the bankruptcy.  Dr Vats makes complaint, for instance, about the requirement or the insistence on the requirement that he complete a statement of affairs. 

3. He continues to challenge the making of the sequestration order at first instance by Registrar Caporale, and complains against the respondent, the trustee of his estate, that he, Dr Vats, was put under duress to coerce him to make a statement of affairs.  He claims compensation for the consequences of the trustee’s actions. 

4. However, when the matter was mentioned, the primary purpose of the application was outlined to relate to the refusal by the trustee to consent to Dr Vat’s application to travel overseas between 15 January and 28 January 2015. 

5. The application seeks compensation of $27,000, including $7,000 for travel expenses which apparently were lost, and he also claimed a restoration of his right to travel overseas.

6. In support of the application was a short affidavit which criticised the trustee in relation to the refusal of the right to travel overseas and also asserted that there was an outstanding issue concerning his solvency.  He insisted on a refusal to complete a statement of affairs until the matters is settled by the Full Federal Court and the High Court. 

7. So far as the application is comprehensible, it appears to be an application to review a decision of the trustee made on 14 January 2015 to refuse Dr Vat’s consent to travel overseas.  That part of the…