FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Platcher v Joseph [2003] FCA 509 CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER v PAUL FRANCIS JOSEPH N 72 OF 2003 CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION N 73 OF 2003 WHITLAM J 24 APRIL 2003 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 72 OF 2003 BETWEEN: CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER APPELLANT AND: PAUL FRANCIS JOSEPH RESPONDENT JUDGE: WHITLAM J DATE OF ORDER: 24 APRIL 2003 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appellant's motion, notice of which was filed 2 April 2003, is dismissed with costs. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 73 OF 2003 BETWEEN: CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER APPELLANT AND: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION RESPONDENT JUDGE: WHITLAM J DATE OF ORDER: 24 APRIL 2003 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appellant's motion, notice of which was filed 2 April 2003, is dismissed with costs. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA N 72 OF 2003 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 73 OF 2003 BETWEEN: CHARLES EDWARD PLATCHER APPELLANT AND: N 72 OF 2003 PAUL FRANCIS JOSEPH RESPONDENT N 73 OF 2003 AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION RESPONDENT JUDGE: WHITLAM J DATE: 24 APRIL 2003 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for a stay of judgment pending the hearing of an appeal against that judgment. The judgment was given by Stone J on 13 January 2003 when she made two orders. The first order dismissed the appellant's application for an annulment of his bankruptcy. The second order was that '[p]ursuant to s 206E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the respondent is disqualified from managing corporations for a period of 25 years from the date of these orders.' 2 A notice of appeal was filed on 3 February 2003 with respect to the first order. That appeal is proceeding N 72 of 2003. At a callover on 13 February 2003, Sackville J directed the appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with proper grounds of appeal. 3 An amended notice of appeal was subsequently filed on 6 March 2003. It states six grounds of appeal. I will not set them out. 4 The appellant filed an affidavit in support of the notice of motion on 22 April 2003, being an affidavit made by himself on 17 April 2003. 5 The affidavit states that his amended notice of appeal raises 'significant grounds for argument against the judgment of Justice Stone'. In paragraph 3, the appellant says that he continues to attend to the preparation of the appeal, and paragraph 4 says that 'the respondent has instructed other "related" proceedings against the Appellant, for which there are serious issues for argument.' 6 I am afraid that cryptic reference doesn't take the matter very much further. In support of his application the appellant prepared voluminous submissions which made reference to material, some of which was agitated at first instance, some of which may have been received in evidence, and some of which may not. I made it clear to the appellant that the only material that was formally before me in support of his application for a stay was what he stated in his affidavit made on 17 April 2003. It became apparent then that the appellant wished to go to some of the material that was before Stone J in order to indicate the strength of the grounds of appeal he would agitate on his appeal. 7 However, I raised with the appellant the utility of the stay that he sought, it being borne in mind that the order made by her Honour was simply that the application for annulment be dismissed. The appellant stated that he has not enjoyed good health recently, and that he has some proceedings pending in the Local Court. Nonetheless, I'm afraid they do not seem to me to give any indication as to any reason why a stay would be of any utility. 8 There is no doubt, as the Full Court stated in Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation (1996) 67 FCR 65, that the Court has a very broad discretion to grant a stay. That was an application for a stay heard by a Full Court but it is the same discretion that I am now asked to exercise. It is sufficient for someone seeking a stay to demonstrate a reason or an appropriate case to warrant a favourable exercise of that discretion. 9 In the circumstances, and having regard to the nature of the order made by her Honour at first instance which is the subject of appeal, I am satisfied that the appellant has given me no good reason to grant the stay. 10 Accordingly, in proceeding N 72 of 2003, the application for a stay is refused. The appellant must pay the respondent's costs of his notice of motion filed on 2 April 2003. 11 A notice of appeal was also filed on 3 February 2003 with respect to the second order of her Honour's judgment. That appeal is proceeding N 73 of 2003. 12 Mr Platcher has expanded at some length on what he sees as inadequacies in her Honour's judgment and her Honour's reasons for judgment for making that order, but nothing that he has said has given any reason or suggested any kind of case to warrant the exercise of a discretion to stay that order and, accordingly, the application is refused with costs. I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam. Associate: Dated: 22 May 2003 Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent: N J Beaumont Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Date of Hearing: 24 April 2003 Date of Judgment: 24 April 2003