IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN AND BETWEEN Judge making orders: Date orders made: Where made: No. G137 of 1983 JOSEPH HEDRLIN Applicant THE PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN No. 3670 Respondent No. W448 of 1983 JOSEPH HEDRLIN Applicant TIIE PROPRIETORS ~- STRATA PLAN No. 3670 First Respondent MAX CHRISTOPHER DONNELLY Second Respondent ORDERS Beaumont, J. 27 September, Sydney. 1983. Mee ee re tee ar erernenr nae meee atten ee Aine UREN Be emer Santee ome THE COURT ORDERS THAT: In matter No. W448 of 1983: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent including reserved costs. 3. The applicant pay the costs of the second respondent on a submitting basis. In matter No. G137 of 1983: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents including reserved costs. enae ee ad trae EntY Cove emma meer enn eens eee ee eee IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN No. G. 137 of 1983 JOSEPH HEDRLIN AND BETWEEN Applicant THE PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN No. 3670 Respondent No. W. 448 of 1983 JOSEPH HEDRLIN AND AND CORAM: Beaumont, J. DATED: 27 September, 1983. Applicant THE PROPRIETORS ~—- STRATA PLAN No. 3670 First Respondent MAX CHRISTOPHER DONNELLY Second Respondent REASONS FOR JUDCMENT I will deal first with matter No. W 448 of 1983. There are two applications before the Court. The first is an application to stay proceedings under the sequestration order; the second is an application to annul the bankruptcy. The first application is an interim application and 1s incidental to the second application. On 29 August, 1983 I refused a similar application for annulment for the reasons I then gave. On this occasion the applicant has covered much of the ground raised in the earlier application. Even if the matter were not res judicata, I see no reason for changing the views I then expressed. However, the applicant, who still appears in person, has raised a number of fresh matters as follows: 1. The fact that application has been made to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking leave to appeal against a decision of a single judge of that Court, such application to be heard on 7 November, 1983. 2. The decision of Needham, J. in the matter Proprietors of Strata Plan No. 6522 v. Furney (1976) 1 NSWDLR 412. 3. The provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act, 1977 (N.S.W.) (see Viskuskas v. Niland (1983) 47 ALR 32). 4. Section 35 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1966: in this connection, the applicant seeks a transfer of the bankruptcy proceedings to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In my opinion, none of these matters are relevant to this application, which is confined to the jurisdiction granted by s.154 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1966. As a further ground, the applicant asserts that he is able, although unwilling, to pay his debts. Presumably the applicant has in mind the decision of the Full Court of this Court in Re Sarina (1980) 32 ALR 596. This ground could conceivably be made out if evidence to support 1t were available. However, no evidence, as distinct from assertion, of the applicant's financial position was adduced. It follows that, again, the application must be dismissed. Again, I order that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, including reserved costs, and I further order that the applicant pay the costs of the second respondent on a submitting basis. I turn now to the other application and that is in matter No. G. 137 of 1983. In paragraph 2 of his notice of motion the applicant seeks an order for the removal of the trustee of his estate. The applicant appears 1n person and argued this matter at the same time as two related applications (see above). Originally, this application was to be heard on 4 October, 1983, but by consent this fixture was vacated and en care eee Ee TERR ETD! LORE OTE CUAAT Ee CAO AAR Hit En NTT Mas See SE ee Se the application was argued today. The applicant tendered no evidence in the application but made a number of assertions. He referred to: (1) alleged bias on the part of the trustee; (2) the statutory consent given by the trustee to act; (3) an alleged private agreement between the trustee, the respondent and its solicitor; {4) section 165 of the Act; (5) section 19{1)(c) and (g) of the Act; (6) the circumstances surrounding the joinder of the trustee as a respondent to the appeal against the judgment and orders of Evatt, J. made on 24 May, 1983 in which the applicant was made bankrupt. In my opinion, few only of the foregoing matters bear upon the 1ussue of the Fitness of the trustee to act, but, in any event, there is no material before the Court sufficient to warrant the making of any finding of bias or misconduct on the part of the trustee, nor, in my view, has any case been made out which would justify an inference of apprehension on the part of the applicant that on any reasonable basis he should fear that there will be bias or misconduct in the future on the part of the trustee. It follows, in my view, that the application for removal should be dismissed and the applicant must pay the costs of the respondents, including any reserved costs. one eo ne en Ng Ree Te Ne ate te PE eet nee | certify that Samed the + preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of The Honourable Mr Justice Beaumont. Deane (rors ° Associate Dated 17 oredr 1483