FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Worrell v Tantner-Issitch [1999] FCA 1297
SIGFRIED TANTNER EX PARTE: IVOR WORRELL v LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH
DOWSETT J
14 SEPTEMBER 1999
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 7007 OF 1996
BETWEEN:
SIGFRIED TANTNER
BankruptEX PARTE: IVOR WORRELL
ApplicantAND:
LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH
RespondentJUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 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
BankruptEX PARTE: IVOR WORRELL
ApplicantAND:
LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
14 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I would not normally entertain an application for interrogatories at this late stage, but these are proceedings in bankruptcy, and it does seem to me that they have been conducted in a quite singular way on both sides. I am of the view that the conduct of the trial is likely to be very much expedited if the interrogatories are answered. In those circumstances I think that it is probably in the interests of the administration of justice that they be answered.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 15 September 1999
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Martin Solicitor for the Applicant: Baker Johnson Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P McQuade Solicitor for the Respondent: Andrew P Abaza Date of Hearing: 14 September 1999 Date of Judgment: 14 September 1999
- AGLC
- Worrell v Tantner-Issitch [1999] FCA 1297
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1297
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to allow the applicant to seek interrogatories from the respondent at such a late stage in the proceedings, particularly given that these were bankruptcy proceedings. The court had to balance the need for the administration of justice with the procedural norms that typically preclude such requests at a late stage. The court also had to consider whether the conduct of the trial would be expedited by the answers to the interrogatories.
Justice Dowsett determined that while ordinarily the court would not entertain an application for interrogatories at such a late stage, the unique nature of bankruptcy proceedings and the conduct of the case warranted an exception. The court concluded that answering the interrogatories would likely expedite the trial and was in the interests of the administration of justice. Therefore, the court granted the applicant's request for interrogatories.
The court's judgment resulted in an order that the respondent, Ludmilla Issitch, must answer the interrogatories posed by the applicant, Ivor Worrell. The decision recognised the exceptional circumstances of the case and the potential benefits of expediting the trial through the provision of the requested information.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.