FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Dunn, in the matter of Dunn v Vangsnes [2000] FCA 1050 IN THE MATTER OF TRYGVE VANGSNES ROBERT DUNN v TRYGVE VANGSNES N 8053 OF 1999 HELY J 27 JULY 2000 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 8053 OF 1999 BETWEEN: ROBERT DUNN APPLICANT AND: TRYGVE VANGSNES RESPONDENT JUDGE: HELY J DATE OF ORDER: 27 JULY 2000 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for adjournment 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 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 8053 OF 1999 BETWEEN: ROBERT DUNN APPLICANT AND: TRYGVE VANGSNES RESPONDENT JUDGE: HELY J DATE: 27 JULY 2000 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 There is before me a creditor's petition which was presented on 20 September 1999 and originally returnable on 1 November 1999. The matter has been in my list on various occasions, but on 9 June this year I fixed the hearing to commence today, 27 July 2000. On each of the occasions when the matter has previously been in my list, Mr Vangsnes appeared in person and filed affidavits in support of his opposition to the petition. This morning he informed me that he seeks an adjournment of the proceedings to enable him to get legal representation. He stated that he had spoken to a lawyer last week, but that this lawyer, whoever he is, is not available today. 2 In my view, Mr Vangsnes has had more than adequate opportunity to obtain legal representation if he wished to be legally represented and I am not prepared to adjourn the hearing of the petition on that ground. Mr Vangsnes has filed an affidavit this morning which indicates that he has taken out a Notice of Motion in the Supreme Court returnable on 7 September 2000. The Notice of Motion seeks modification of the orders made by that Court which formed the basis of the cost assessor's determination, which in turned formed the basis of the District Court judgment on which the petition was based. I am told by the applicant's counsel that this motion has not as yet been served upon them, but I am told by Mr Vangsnes that it will be served in due course. 3 Again, the issue of the status of the proceedings in the Supreme Court has been a matter which has been agitated at previous directions hearings. Mr Vangsnes has, in my opinion, had more than adequate opportunity to make whatever approach he wished to make to that Court. I am not prepared to adjourn the matter until after 7 September 2000 to enable him to pursue this motion, particularly because the creditor's petition will expire on 14 September 2000. If Mr Vangsnes wishes to establish that this is an appropriate case in which to go behind the judgment on which the Bankruptcy Petition is based, then he can do so by evidence filed in these proceedings. I think that the hearing of the petition should proceed and I propose to refuse the application for an adjournment. 4 After I dismissed Mr Vangsnes' application for an adjournment until September he made a further application for an adjournment until next week when "my lawyer can represent me in court". I have already held that Mr Vangsnes has had more than adequate opportunity to obtain a legal representation if he wished, and there is no reason why if he wished to be legally represented, he could not have procured representation for this morning. The adjournment application is opposed and I am not prepared to accede to it. The application for adjournment until next week is refused. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely. Associate: Dated: 2 August 2000 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R J Powell Solicitor for the Applicant: Blake Dawson Waldron The respondent appeared in person Date of Hearing: 27 July 2000 Date of Judgment: 27 July 2000