Warner v Wong, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liq) (No 3)

[2015] FCA 365

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Warner v Wong, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liq) (No 3) [2015] FCA 365

Citation:

Warner v Wong, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liq) (No 3) [2015] FCA 365

Parties:

ANTHONY JOHN WARNER AND STEVEN KUGEL IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF BELLPAC PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 101 713 017 and BELLPAC PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 101 713 017 v

ALFRED WONG, SHAN PEI INVESTMENT LIMITED, GOOD TEAM INVESTMENTS LIMITED, GREAT INVESTMENTS LIMITED, OSMOND TZE LEUNG KWOK, HONG XU, ZHI HONG, CHIAH CHEANG LEE, and GUJARAT NRE COKING COAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GUJARAT NRE MINERALS LIMITED)

File number:

NSD 1063 of 2012

Judge:

GRIFFITHS J

Date of judgment:

9 March 2015

Date of hearing:

9 March 2015

Place:

Sydney

Division:

GENERAL DIVISION

Category:

No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

6

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

N Cotman SC and S Wells

Solicitor for the Plaintiffs:

Breene & Breene, Solicitors

Counsel for the Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Defendants:

T Tzovaras

Solicitor for the Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Defendants:

JT Law t/as Tomaras Lawyers

Counsel for the Eighth Defendant:

G Stapleton

Solicitor for the Eighth Defendant:

Avantro

Counsel for the Third, Fifth, Eleventh and Twelfth Defendants:

There was no appearance by the Third, Fifth, Eleventh and Twelfth Defendants

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1063 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF BELLPAC PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 101 713 017

BETWEEN:

ANTHONY JOHN WARNER AND STEVEN KUGEL IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF BELLPAC PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 101 713 017
First Plaintiff

BELLPAC PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 101 713 017
Second Plaintiff

AND:

ALFRED WONG
Third Defendant

SHAN PEI INVESTMENT LIMITED
Fifth Defendant

GOOD TEAM INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Sixth Defendant

GREAT INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Seventh Defendant

OSMOND TZE LEUNG KWOK
Eighth Defendant

HONG XU
Ninth Defendant

ZHI HONG
Tenth Defendant

CHIAH CHEANG LEE
Eleventh Defendant

GUJARAT NRE COKING COAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GUJARAT NRE MINERALS LIMITED)
Twelfth Defendant

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 MARCH 2015
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The third defendant’s application for the proceedings to be adjourned be refused.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1063 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF BELLPAC PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 101 713 017

BETWEEN:

ANTHONY JOHN WARNER AND STEVEN KUGEL IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF BELLPAC PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 101 713 017
First Plaintiff

BELLPAC PTY LIMITED (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 101 713 017
Second Plaintiff

AND:

ALFRED WONG
Third Defendant

SHAN PEI INVESTMENT LIMITED
Fifth Defendant

GOOD TEAM INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Sixth Defendant

GREAT INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Seventh Defendant

OSMOND TZE LEUNG KWOK
Eighth Defendant

HONG XU
Ninth Defendant

ZHI HONG
Tenth Defendant

CHIAH CHEANG LEE
Eleventh Defendant

GUJARAT NRE COKING COAL LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GUJARAT NRE MINERALS LIMITED)
Twelfth Defendant

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE:	9 MARCH 2015
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from the Transcript of Proceedings dated 9 March 2015)

1. The Court has before it a request by the third defendant in the proceedings, Mr Alfred Wong, to adjourn the hearing.

2. The matter was listed for hearing on 7 October 2014 for five days commencing today. Directions were also made some time ago for the defendants to file defences.  Mr Wong filed his defence electronically last Friday, 6 March 2015.  

3. Mr Wong sent an email to my Associate on Saturday at 3.34 pm.  Mr Wong is representing himself in the proceedings.  In that email Mr Wong made reference to the defence which he said would be filed with the Court today.  As I have already indicated, it was in fact attempted to be filed at least electronically last Friday.

4. Mr Wong then said in his email:

   Please inform his Honour that, regrettably, I will not be able to attend the hearing commencing next Monday. Although I had every intention to attend in person at the hearing to defend my case, due to urgent circumstances I must fly to China today. I would like to apply to his Honour to adjourn the matter to another date suitable to his Honour and all parties so that I can defend my case properly.

5. Mr Wong has not filed any affidavit in support of his request for the proceeding to be adjourned, nor has he offered any explanation in his email as to what was the nature of the urgent circumstances which required him to fly to China last Saturday. Nor has he indicated when he would be available to participate in any future hearing of the matter.

6. In all the circumstances, and having regard to the fact that Mr Wong was on notice since at least last October of the fact that his five-day hearing would commence today, his request for the proceeding to be adjourned is refused.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Griffiths.

Associate:

Dated:       21 April 2015