In the Matter of Teese [2003] FCA 320

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

In the Matter of Teese [2003] FCA 320 IN THE MATTER OF ANN CAROLYN TEESE N 7013 OF 2003 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 31 MARCH 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 7015 OF 2003

In the matter of ANN CAROLYN TEESE

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 31 MARCH 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application seeking adjournment of the examination fixed for 1 April 2003 be dismissed. 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 7015 OF 2003

In the matter of ANN CAROLYN TEESE

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 31 MARCH 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant has appeared before me ex parte seeking an order adjourning an examination which has been fixed for tomorrow before a Registrar. Although the only documentation before me is a notice of motion for discharge of summons and an incomplete affidavit which refers only to a notice of appeal, I am prepared to assume that there is an examination scheduled for tomorrow which the applicant is required to attend. 2 The history of this matter appears to be the following. Federal Magistrate Driver made orders on 20 August 2002 sequestrating the applicant's estate and staying all proceedings under the sequestration order for 21 days. So far as the Court is concerned, the next event that appears to have occurred is that on 9 December 2002 the applicant filed an application for extension of time in which to file an appeal. That application was accompanied by a draft notice of appeal. The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal duly came on for hearing before Lindgren J on 6 February 2003 and 17 March 2003. 3 By a judgment delivered on 28 March 2003, his Honour dismissed the application for an extension of time and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs. 4 The applicant has provided me with what appears to be a draft notice of appeal against the judgment of Lindgren J. The difficulty facing the applicant is that Lindgren J has exercised the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court and, consequently, any further appeal would seem to be by way of application for special leave to the High Court. In any event, there has been no material put forward that suggests that Lindgren J was in error in reaching the conclusions that he did. 5 Accordingly, the sequestration order remains in place and the stay in relation to that sequestration order has expired. It follows that there is a sound basis for the issue of what I assume is a summons requiring the applicant to attend for examination tomorrow. No ground has been shown for making an order adjourning or staying the examination. 6 Nothing I have said, however, is intended to prevent the applicant from putting forward tomorrow any other reason that may be available to her for requesting an adjournment or stay of the examination. If, for example, there are medical or other reasons as to why the examination should not take place she is at liberty to put those propositions to the Registrar conducting the examination. Doubtless any objections that she has will be dealt with on the merits. 7 On the material before me, however, there is no basis for me today to make an order staying or adjourning the examination and I decline to make such order. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville.