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

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     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.

2                     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.

3                     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.

Associate:

Dated:              30 September 1999