Worrell, in the matter of Tantner (Bankrupt) v Issitch

[1999] FCA 1365

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Worrell, in the matter of Tantner (Bankrupt) v Issitch [1999] FCA 1365

SIGFRIED TANTNER, EX PARTE:  IVOR WORRELL v LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH and HILARIO RICABLANCA and GREGORIA RICABLANCA
QG 7007 of 1996

DOWSETT J

27 SEPTEMBER 1999

BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG 7007 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

SIGFRIED TANTNER
Bankrupt

EX PARTE:  IVOR WORRELL
Applicant

AND:

LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH
Respondent

HILARIO RICABLANCA AND GREGORIA RICABLANCA
Cross-Respondents

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 SEPTEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG 7007 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

SIGFRIED TANTNER
Bankrupt

EX PARTE:  IVOR WORRELL
Applicant

AND:

LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH
Respondent

HILARIO RICABLANCA AND GREGORIA RICABLANCA
Cross-Respondents

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	27 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The respondent in respect of the issue of costs seeks to revisit the order that I made on Friday that she pay the costs of the application to annul the bankruptcy.  Her solicitor seeks to lead evidence which he says will show that the bankrupt was not aware of his bankruptcy until 12 November 1994.

2. He says that this was because the Trustee failed to notify him in accordance with the rules of the fact that an order had been made.  I do not accept that assertion at face value, but whether it be so or not it seems to me to be quite irrelevant for present purposes.  It is not the status of the bankrupt - it is not the bankrupt's action in bringing an application for annulment which is in question here.  Although he made such an application it was not prosecuted.

3. It is the respondent's conduct in bringing an application to annul which is relevant for present purposes.  Clearly enough from the time when she brought the application she has been aware of the fact of the bankruptcy and I cannot see that evidence as to when or if the bankrupt became aware of it is relevant for present purposes.  I will not receive such evidence on the issue of costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:             30 September 1999

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Martin
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Baker Johnson
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr Andrew P Abaza
Date of Hearing:	20-27 September 1999
Date of Judgment:	27 September 1999