Nassar, A. v Advance Bank Australia Ltd [1995] FCA 341

CATCHWORDS BANKRUPTCY - proceedings in connection with sequestration - appeal, review and variation of Order - applicant refused further adjournment to secure legal representation or to obtain file - whether natural justice denied - Bankruptcy Act 1966 s.239. Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 625 Maxwell v Keun (1928) 1 KB 645 Walker v Walker (1967) 1 WLR 327 Carryer v Kelly (1969) 90 WN(PT1) NSW 566 Bloch v Bloch (1981) 55 ALJR 701 Ahern v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Qld) (1987) 76 ALR 137 Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292 Williams v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1994) 122 ALR 585 ABDO NASSAR v ADVANCE BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED NO SG 1 OF 1995 BURCHETT, O'LOUGHLIN & NICHOLSON JJ ADELAIDE 12 MAY 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) NO SG 1 OF 1995 B E T W E E N: ABDO NASSAR Appellant and ADVANCE BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED Respondent MINUTE OF ORDER CORAM: BURCHETT, O'LOUGHLIN and NICHOLSON JJ DATE OF ORDER:12 MAY 1995 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The appeal be dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) NO SG 1 OF 1995 B E T W E E N ABDO NASSAR Appellant and ADVANCE BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED Respondent CORAM:BURCHETT, O'LOUGHLIN and NICHOLSON JJ DATE: 12 MAY 1995 PLACE:ADELAIDE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NICHOLSON J (Delivering the first judgment at the request of the presiding Judge): This is an appeal against an order made on 4 January 1995 whereby pursuant to s239(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 ("the Act"), a composition made in a meeting of creditors of the appellant held on 13 September 1994 was set aside and also whereby a sequestration order was made pursuant to s239(1) of that Act and a creditor's petition against the estate of the appellant. The grounds of appeal are two-fold. The first is that the trial judge erred in not granting the appellant an adjournment to enable him to collect his file from former solicitors and, secondly, the trial judge erred in not granting the appellant an adjournment to enable him to arrange alternative legal representation.