Velissaris v Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd

[2010] FCA 1450

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Velissaris v Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1450

Citation:		Velissaris v Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1450
Parties:		GEORGE VELISSARIS v MARYVELL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 080 327 073)
File number(s):		VID 505 of 2009 VID 506 of 2009
Judge:		BROMBERG J
Date of judgment:		17 December 2010
Legislation:		Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 44(1)(c)
Date of hearing:	17 December 2010
Place:	Melbourne
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	5
Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Respondent did not appear

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 505 of 2009

BETWEEN:	GEORGE VELISSARIS Applicant
AND:	MARYVELL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 080 327 073) Respondent

JUDGE:	BROMBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 DECEMBER 2010
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding be dismissed.

2.        There be no order as to costs  

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 506 of 2009

BETWEEN:	GEORGE VELISSARIS Applicant
AND:	MARYVELL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 080 327 073) Respondent

JUDGE:	BROMBERG  J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 DECEMBER 2010
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The proceeding be dismissed.

2.        There be no order as to costs

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 505 of 2009 VID 506 of 2009

BETWEEN:	GEORGE VELISSARIS Applicant
AND:	MARYVELL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 080 327 073) Respondent

JUDGE:	BROMBERG J
DATE:	17 DECEMBER 2010
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Court has before it an application for leave to appeal filed on 7 July 2009 in matter VID 506 of 2009.  In matter VID 505 of 2009, the Court has before it a notice of appeal which was also filed on 7 July 2009.  Both of those applications relate to an appeal that the applicant seeks to make from the judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 27 April 2009.  In essence, the appellant seeks to challenge a bankruptcy notice issued against him.

2. Each of these matters has been adjourned on a number of occasions in circumstances where no appearance has been entered by the respondent to each proceeding, Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd.  I have explained to the self represented applicant on many occasions that before the matter can proceed I will need to be satisfied that the applications have been served upon the respondent.  There is an issue as to whether the respondent any longer exists.  It is not clear to me at the moment whether Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd continues to exist.  Material that the applicant has taken me to suggests that the corporation has been wound up and that it may now be deregistered.

3. On a number of occasions I have asked the applicant to put before the Court proof of the existence of Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd.  Despite a number of attempts, the applicant has not satisfied me either that Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd continues to exist as a corporation, nor that proper service of his applications has been affected upon either Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd or any appointed liquidator of that corporation.

4. I have also raised with the applicant the utility of the applications that he seeks to pursue. I have pointed the applicant to s 44(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) which provides, in essence, that a creditor’s petition is not to be presented against a debtor unless the act of bankruptcy on which the petition is founded was committed within six months before the presentation of the petition. As far as the Court is aware, no creditor’s petition was presented against the applicant within six months before the act of bankruptcy.

5. In those circumstances, I have determined that both proceedings should be dismissed and that there be no order as to costs. 

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bromberg.

Associate:

Dated:        17 December 2010