Yap v Granich and Associates

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Yap v Granich & Associates [2004] FCA 1566

BANKRUPTCY – application to set aside sequestration order – abuse of process – attempt to re-litigate issues previously determined at first instance  and appeal – application dismissed

Yap v Granich & Associates [1999] FCA 1039 cited
Yap v Granich & Associates [1999] FCA 1867 cited
Yap v Granich & Associates [2001] FCA 1735 cited
Yap v Granich & Associates [2002] FMCA 284 cited
Yap v Granich & Associates [2004] FCA 647 cited

YAP CHENG SEE v GRANICH & ASSOCIATES
W200 OF 2004

FRENCH J
1 DECEMBER 2004
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W200 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	YAP CHENG SEE APPLICANT
AND:	GRANICH & ASSOCIATES RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 DECEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application is dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W200 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	YAP CHENG SEE APPLICANT
AND:	GRANICH & ASSOCIATES RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	FRENCH J
DATE:	1 DECEMBER 2004
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 19 August 2004, Yap Cheng See filed an application for an order to set aside a sequestration order made against her by District Registrar Jan on 10 December 1998.  On 12 October 2004, I directed that the application be determined on the papers unless otherwise ordered.  Affidavits and written submissions have been filed by the parties pursuant to those directions.

2. It is immediately apparent from the application and supporting materials that Mrs Yap seeks, yet again, to agitate matters already determined against her in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, in the Federal Court and in the Federal Magistrates Court.

3. On 30 July 1999, I dismissed a motion by Mrs Yap seeking to set aside the 1998 sequestration order – Yap v Granich & Associates [1999] FCA 1039. Mrs Yap appealed against that decision to the Full Court which dismissed her appeal on 29 November 1999 – Yap v Granich & Associates [1999] FCA 1867. Carr J in his judgment set out a factual background incorporating a summary of the procedural history leading up to the appeal to the Full Court. The summary was based upon my reasons for judgment at first instance. It was in the following terms:

   ‘10.On 15 March 1989 a company named P. Vivante & Co Pty Ltd sued the appellant in the District Court of Western Australia for the recovery of a debt of $39,034.17, said to have been owing pursuant to a deed of acknowledgment of debt.  The appellant failed to enter an appearance and, on 10 April 1989, a default judgment was obtained against her.  A writ of fi fa was issued on 26 April 1989 and some of the appellant’s property was seized.  The appellant approached Messrs Melsom Robson & Co, Chartered…