Zegarac v Pitcher Partners

[2009] FCA 1061

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zegarac v Pitcher Partners [2009] FCA 1061

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal interlocutory order – whether applicant has right to have leave application heard by Full Court.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth): s 153
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth): ss 24(1A), 25(2)
Federal Court Rules:  O 52 r 10

Wati v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 78 FCR 543, followed
Kristoffersen v Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business [2002] FCAFC 269, followed
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v WAKX [2005] FCA 227, cited
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Incorporated (1981) 148 CLR 170, cited

SLAVICA ZEGARAC v PITCHER PARTNERS

VID 671 of 2009

GOLDBERG J
17 SEPTEMBER 2009
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 671 of 2009

BETWEEN:	SLAVICA ZEGARAC Applicant
AND:	PITCHER PARTNERS Respondent

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 SEPTEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 671 of 2009

BETWEEN:	SLAVICA ZEGARAC Applicant
AND:	PITCHER PARTNERS Respondent

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE:	17 SEPTEMBER 2009
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal pursuant to O 52 r 10 of the Federal Court Rules from an order made by Tracey J on 4 September 2009 whereby he ordered:

   “1.The Respondent file and serve Contentions of Fact and Law in support of its motion, notice of which was given on 21 August 2009, on or before 18 September 2009.

   2.The Applicant file and serve any answering Contentions of Fact and Law on or before 9 October 2009.

   3.The hearing of the Respondent’s notice of motion take place on a date to be fixed.

   4.        Costs reserved.”

2. The principal proceeding before Tracey J was filed on 13 July 2009. In that application the applicant seeks, in substance, an annulment of her bankruptcy pursuant to s 153 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and also seeks an order for damages against her trustee in bankruptcy.

3. On 21 August 2009 the respondent filed a notice of motion seeking orders that:

   “1.Pursuant to O 20 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules, that insofar as the application relates to allegations against the trustees it should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

   2.Alternatively the application be dismissed as an abuse of the process as the Applicant seeks to re‑agitate issues which have already been heard and determined by this Honourable Court.”

4. On 4 September 2009 there was a directions hearing before Tracey J in which he gave the directions referred to in par [1] above in order to enable the hearing of the respondent’s notice of motion.