FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Weston (Trustee) v Sanna (No 5) [2021] FCA 572
File number: NSD 276 of 2016 Judgment of: MARKOVIC J Date of judgment: 25 May 2021 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to stay the sale of property by the trustee of the bankrupt estate of the seventh respondent – where seventh respondent contends that new evidence demonstrates that findings made in a previous judgment of the Court are incorrect – where material relied upon by seventh respondent is not new and is addressed in the previous judgment – application dismissed Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Cases cited: Weston (Trustee) v Sanna [2019] FCA 32 Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 14 Date of hearing: 25 May 2021 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Spencer Solicitor for the Applicant: Dentons Australia Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent appeared in person Counsel for the Seventh Respondent: The Seventh Respondent appeared in person with a McKenzie friend, Ms M Gattellari Solicitor for the Tenth Respondent: Mr G Adelstein of Adelstein Solicitors Solicitor for the Eleventh Respondent: Mr A Hack of Matthews Folbigg Lawyers ORDERS
NSD 276 of 2016 BETWEEN: MR PAUL GERARD WESTON AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF LEPA SANNA
Applicant
AND: CORRADO SANNA
First Respondent
BORAL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GROUP LTD
Second Respondent
E & B PASTORAL PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
MARKOVIC J
DATE OF ORDER:
25 MAY 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The seventh respondent’s interlocutory application filed on 24 May 2021 is dismissed.
2.The seventh respondent pay the applicant’s and the first, tenth and eleventh respondents’ costs of the application.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)MARKOVIC J:
This is an application brought by Lepa Sanna, on an urgent basis, in effect seeking a stay of the sale of a property situated at 33 Circulo Drive, Copacabana, New South Wales (Copacabana Property) which is scheduled to be offered for sale by auction tomorrow 26 May 2021. Ms Sanna moves on an interlocutory application filed on 24 May 2021 (Application). The Application comprises 17 paragraphs. It is discursive in nature. By that description I mean no disrespect to Ms Sanna who acts for herself and has done the best that she can. However, in part it comprises submissions. Relevantly, at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Application, Ms Sanna says (as written):
(1)Based on new evidence that has only recently been received in relation to the previous Writ of Possession and subsequent sale of the property at 33 Circulo Drive, (“Copacabana”) in 2012 that a urgent stay be granted for the current auction taking place of Copacabana on 26th May 2021 until this application is heard and determined;
(2)A further Order that the sale of the Copacabana property…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Weston (Trustee) v Sanna (No 5) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] FCA 572
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the application to stay the sale should be granted. This required scrutiny of the nature and relevance of the evidence Sanna claimed was new. The Court had to determine if the material presented by Sanna was truly novel and if it had the potential to affect the outcome of the previous judgment. Additionally, the Court needed to assess whether the application was an abuse of process or a legitimate attempt to present new evidence.
The Court found that the evidence Sanna relied upon was not new and was already addressed in the previous judgment. Consequently, the application to stay the sale was dismissed. The Court reasoned that the evidence did not meet the threshold for being considered new and did not provide a basis for altering the previous findings. Moreover, the Court held that Sanna's application was an abuse of process. As a result, the application was dismissed, and Sanna was ordered to pay the costs of the application to the applicant and other specified respondents.
In summary, the Federal Court dismissed Sanna's application to stay the sale of the property and ruled that the application was an abuse of process. The Court also mandated that Sanna cover the costs incurred by the other parties involved in the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The seventh respondent’s interlocutory application filed on 24 May 2021 is dismissed.
2. The seventh respondent pay the applicant’s and the first, tenth and eleventh respondents’ costs of the application.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.