FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dudzinski v Kellow [2003] FCA 755
WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI v AYNSLEY KELLOW, ROY RICKSON, ERROL STOCK, BILL HOGARTH, CORDIA CHU, KEES HULSMAN, LYN HOLMAN, COLIN McANDREW, JOHN SCOTT AND GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
Q 31 OF 2003
DOWSETT J
10 JULY 2003
BRISBANE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY |
Q 31 OF 2003 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
AYNSLEY KELLOW FIRST RESPONDENT
ROY RICKSON SECOND RESPONDENT
ERROL STOCK THIRD RESPONDENT
BILL HOGARTH FOURTH RESPONDENT
CORDIA CHU FIFTH RESPONDENT
KEES HULSMAN SIXTH RESPONDENT
LYN HOLMAN SEVENTH RESPONDENT
COLIN McANDREW EIGHTH RESPONDENT
JOHN SCOTT NINTH RESPONDENT
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY TENTH RESPONDENT
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
BRISBANE |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for adjournment of the appeal be refused.
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 |
Q 31 OF 2003 |
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
BETWEEN: |
WALDEMAR DUDZINSKI APPELLANT
|
|
AND: |
AYNSLEY KELLOW FIRST RESPONDENT
ROY RICKSON SECOND RESPONDENT
ERROL STOCK THIRD RESPONDENT
BILL HOGARTH FOURTH RESPONDENT
CORDIA CHU FIFTH RESPONDENT
KEES HULSMAN SIXTH RESPONDENT
LYN HOLMAN SEVENTH RESPONDENT
COLIN McANDREW EIGHTH RESPONDENT
JOHN SCOTT NINTH RESPONDENT
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY TENTH RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
BRISBANE |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application to adjourn an appeal set down for argument in the Full Court on 14 August this year. It has been set down since some time early in June and relates to a decision in March of this year in which the present appellant was declared bankrupt. The sole reason advanced for the adjournment is that the appellant received notice on or about 4 June that the lease over the premises in which he presently resides will expire on 16 July and will not be renewed.
2 Whilst this will no doubt cause some not insignificant inconvenience to the appellant, I am by no means satisfied that it is such a disruption as to prevent him from preparing for the appeal. He has had already over a month in which to make appropriate arrangements, and he will have the best part of another month, even after his term expires, in which to prepare for the appeal. In those circumstances I do not consider that the termination of his tenancy is, of itself, a ground for adjourning the appeal.
3 I say that particularly having regard to the nature of these proceedings. They are in bankruptcy and it is in the interests of all concerned, especially the creditors, that such matters be resolved expeditiously. It would not, in my view, be in the interests of creditors or in the public interest that the ultimate resolution of the bankruptcy be further delayed. I also doubt whether it would really be in Mr Dudzinski’s long term interests. In those circumstances, the application will be refused.
|
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. |
Associate:
Dated: 23 July 2003
|
Counsel for the Appellant: |
The Appellant appeared in person. |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the First to Tenth Respondents: |
S Brown |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the First to Tenth Respondents: |
Minter Ellison Lawyers |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
10 July 2003 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
10 July 2003 |
