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

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

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.
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.
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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia, in the matter of Worrell, in the matter of Tantner (Bankrupt) v Issitch, heard a dispute between Siegfried Tantner, a bankrupt, and Ludmilla Issitch, also known as Ludmilla Tantner-Issitch. The applicant, Ivor Worrell, sought to annul the bankruptcy and address costs associated with the annulment application. The cross-respondents, Hilario and Gregoria Ricablanca, were also part of the proceedings. The central legal issue was whether Ludmilla Issitch should pay the costs of the annulment application and if evidence about when the bankrupt became aware of the bankruptcy was relevant to the costs decision.

The court examined whether the respondent's awareness of the bankruptcy and the timing of that awareness should influence the costs decision. Dowsett J concluded that the respondent's awareness of the bankruptcy was the pertinent factor, not the bankrupt's awareness. As the respondent had been aware of the bankruptcy when she initiated the annulment application, the court deemed evidence about the bankrupt's awareness irrelevant. Consequently, the respondent was required to bear the costs of the annulment application.

In summary, the court held that the timing of the bankrupt's awareness of the bankruptcy did not affect the costs decision, as the respondent's awareness was the critical element. The court's reasoning focused on the respondent's actions and awareness rather than the bankrupt's knowledge. The final orders mandated that Ludmilla Issitch pay the costs of the annulment application, reflecting the court's determination regarding the relevance of the evidence presented.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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

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

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