Horvath v Pattison [1999] FCA 924

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Horvath v Pattison [1999] FCA 924 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – vexatious litigant – application for leave to commence a proceeding – whether leave should be granted – whether order prevents the hearing of an ex parte application – jurisdiction to enjoin the commencement of a proceeding Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – ss 104, 153B Federal Court Rules – O 21 r 2 Commonwealth Trading Bank v Inglis (1974) 131 CLR 311 cited Grepe v Loam [1888] 37 ChD 168 followed Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O'Brien (1990) 1 ACSR 510 cited

GABOR HORVATH & AGOTA HORVATH V PAUL A PATTISON & COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA V 323 OF 1999 JUDGE: FINKELSTEIN J PLACE: MELBOURNE DATE: 28 JUNE 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 323 OF 1999

BETWEEN: GABOR HORVATH and

AGOTA HORVATH

Applicants

AND: PAUL A PATTISON and

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Respondents

JUDGE: FINKELSTEIN J

DATE OF ORDER: 28 JUNE 1999

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Mr and Mrs Horvath do not institute an application for an order to annul their bankruptcies upon the ground that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was not entitled to present the petition upon which the sequestration order was made. 2. Grant to Mr and Mrs Horvath leave to make an application under s 104(3) of the Bankruptcy Act for extending the time within which to make an application under s 104(1) to review the decision of the trustee in bankruptcy to admit the proof of debt lodged by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, but limited to the ground that the trustee should have deducted from the amount of the debt the value of any security held by that bank. 3. Otherwise, the application be dismissed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.