FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Prestia v Pacific Counties Corporation Pty Limited [2008] FCA 2005



 


 


 


 


JULIE ANNE PRESTIA v PACIFIC COUNTIES CORPORATION PTY LIMITED

 

NSD 474 OF 2008

 

 

EMMETT J

5 DECEMBER 2008

SYDNEY



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 474 OF 2008

 

BETWEEN:

JULIE ANNE PRESTIA

Applicant

 

AND:

PACIFIC COUNTIES CORPORATION PTY LIMITED

ACN 002 143 937

Respondent

 

 

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 DECEMBER 2008

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

 

1.                  The Notice of Motion filed on 22 October 2008 be dismissed.

2.                  The Applicant on the motion pay the respondent’s costs of the motion.


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



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 474 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

JULIE ANNE PRESTIA

Applicant

 

AND:

PACIFIC COUNTIES CORPORATION PTY LIMITED

ACN 002 143 937

Respondent

 

 

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

5 DECEMBER 2008

PLACE:

SYDNEY


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT


1                                             On 1 October 2008, Deputy Registrar Hedge made an order that Bankruptcy Notice number NN 688 of 2008 be set aside.  Registrar Hedge also ordered that the applicant debtor pay the respondent creditor’s costs fixed in the amount of $2,500.  Those orders were made in absentia.  The debtor did not attend that hearing and there has been no explanation offered as to why the debtor did not attend.  However, on 22 October 2008, the debtor filed a notice of motion seeking review of the Registrar’s decision.  That motion was listed for hearing on 12 November 2008.  It appears to have been adjourned to 13 November 2008, when Cowdroy J gave directions for the debtor to file and serve any evidence upon which she wished to rely before 4 pm on 27 November 2008.  The matter was stood over for directions today before the duty judge. 

2                                             When the matter was called on today, I was informed that Cowdroy J’s directions had not been complied with and no explanation was offered as to why they had not been complied with.  In the circumstances I consider the appropriate course is to dismiss the notice of motion for want of compliance with the Court’s directions. 


I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.



Associate:


Dated:         16 January 2009


Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms C Mathews

 

 

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Russo & Partners

 

 

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms ST Chrysanthou

 

 

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Landerer & Company

 

 

Date of Hearing:

5 December 2008

 

 

Date of Judgment:

5 December 2008