Zegarac v Pitcher Partners

[2009] FCA 804

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Zegarac v Pitcher Partners [2009] FCA 804

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 153B
Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth) ss 35A, 39

Dellios v Zegarac [2006] FCA 1733
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Zegarac v Dellios (No 2) [2007] FCAFC 141

SLAVICA ZEGARAC v PITCHER PARTNERS

VID 518 of 2009

TRACEY J
28 JULY 2009
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	VID 518 of 2009

BETWEEN:	SLAVICA ZEGARAC Applicant
AND:	PITCHER PARTNERS Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 JULY 2009
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The motions notice of which was given on 27 July 2009 are each refused.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

2.A directions hearing be fixed for 4 September 2009 at 9:30 am.

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 518 of 2009

BETWEEN:	SLAVICA ZEGARAC Applicant
AND:	PITCHER PARTNERS Respondent

JUDGE:	TRACEY J
DATE:	28 JULY 2009
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 16 July 2009 the applicant gave notice that she would be applying for the annulment of her bankruptcy.  By notice of motion filed yesterday in the proceeding in which she seeks annulment of her bankruptcy she seeks three orders:  First, that the court grant leave for the case to be heard by a jury; secondly, that there be discovery of documents held by Pitcher Partners, Paul Dellios (trading as Dellios West & Co) and ITSA;  and, thirdly, that the court order the issue of subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses. 

2. Argument progressed in the court for the whole of this morning on these issues.  At a late stage of the argument the applicant asked that I should withdraw from further hearing the matter.  I told her that I would hear her on that issue once counsel for the respondents had made their submissions and in due course she developed that application which, as I understood it, was an application that I disqualify myself from further hearing the matter by reason of apprehended bias. 

3. The basis upon which I was asked to withdraw when particularised involved four matters relating to the conduct of the hearing this morning.  It was first said that I had refused to require counsel to go into the witness box when this was demanded by the applicant.  The second ground was that I had referred to the proceeding as a game.  The third was that I had refused to require counsel to answer verbal interrogatories administered at the bar table by the applicant, and, finally, it was submitted that I had made rulings which prevented the applicant rehearsing various aspects of the history of this proceeding - those rulings having been based on questions of relevance. 

4. As to the first of the matters:  I declined to accede to the…