FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Day v Gould, in the matter of Gould [2002] FCA 1250 IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN GOULD JULIAN DAY & ANOR v STEPHEN GOULD N 7025 of 2002 STONE J 2 OCTOBER 2002 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 7025 OF 2002 BETWEEN: JULIAN DAY FIRST APPLICANT ALAN MANLY SECOND APPLICANT AND: STEPHEN GOULD RESPONDENT JUDGE: STONE J DATE OF ORDER: 2 OCTOBER 2002 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT DIRECTS THAT: 1. The Registrar refuse to accept the respondent's notice of 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 N 7025 OF 2002 BETWEEN: JULIAN DAY APPLICANT ALAN MANLY SECOND APPLICANT AND: STEPHEN GOULD RESPONDENT JUDGE: STONE J DATE: 2 OCTOBER 2002 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me a request from the acting District Registrar in the New South Wales Registry for a direction pursuant to O 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules. The respondent has presented to the Registry for filing a notice of motion and supporting affidavit. The notice of motion seeks to set aside certain summonses, issued on 5 June 2002 under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), to attend for examination, or, in the alternative, to vacate the hearing date for the examinations pursuant to those summonses that are listed for hearing tomorrow, 3 October 2002. 2 The respondent has been given an opportunity in Court to persuade me that I should not direct the Registrar to refuse to accept the notice of motion. He has not been successful in his attempt. The summonses were issued by the first applicant, Mr Julian Day, on 5 June 2002 to various named persons. On 16 July 2002, Madgwick J considered a notice of motion brought by the respondent asking the Court to strike out these summonses; Day v Gould, in the matter of Gould [2002] FCA 936. In his decision his Honour stated, at [4]: "There is no evidentiary material before me to suggest that the summonses are oppressive or have been improperly issued and no submission has been made which would persuade me that there is anything wrong with the summonses. The summonses were issued after the Court received an affidavit indicating why they were being issued." 3 The position before me is exactly the same as that before Madgwick J. It is, however, made more extreme by the fact that his Honour has already considered this issue. The proposed notice of motion is one in a series of objections and challenges by the respondent to his bankruptcy and to the administration of it. In my opinion the notice of motion is an abuse of the process of the Court and is frivolous and vexatious. For this reason, I direct the Registrar to refuse to accept it. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone. Associate: Dated: 10 October 2002 Counsel for the First and Second Applicant: The First and Second Applicant did not appear Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent appeared in person Date of Hearing: 2 October 2002 Date of Judgment: 2 October 2002