Williams v JMD Electrics Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1133

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Williams v JMD Electrics Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1133 Williams Robert Williams v JMD Electrics Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1132, followed WILLIAM ROBERT WILLIAMS v JMD ELECTRICS PTY LTD V 404 OF 2003 MARSHALL J 16 OCTOBER 2003 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V404 OF 2003

BETWEEN: WILLIAM ROBERT WILLIAMS

APPELLANT

AND: JMD ELECTRICS PTY LTD

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V404 OF 2003

BETWEEN: WILLIAM ROBERT WILLIAMS

APPELLANT

AND: JMD ELECTRICS PTY LTD

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE: 16 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This matter was heard at the same time as the appeal in V115/03 which involved the same parties. The appeal is from a judgment given by Hartnett FM on 28 April 2003, in which her Honour refused to disqualify herself from hearing an application by the appellant for an annulment of his bankruptcy on account of her refusal on 3 March 2003 to annul the appellant's bankruptcy when an application was made for her to do so. 2 The notice of appeal defies belief. To illustrate why, I only need to set out in full paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof which deal with the grounds of the appeal and the orders sought. Those paragraphs are as follows: "3. GROUNDS:

A. Her Honour, Hartnett FM, declined or refused the application or request of the Appellant that she stand down or otherwise not hear the Application for Annulment because she had previously on 3rd March 2003 heard a case of the Appellant and then ruled against him. This decision was incorrect and Hartnett FM should not have heard the case.