Piepkorn v Scott [2004] FCA 1617

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Piepkorn v Scott [2004] FCA 1617 HENRIETTE PIEPKORN v ALAN SCOTT No S 209 of 2004 FINN J ADELAIDE 7 DECEMBER 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 209 OF 2004

BETWEEN: HENRIETTE PIEPKORN

APPLICANT

AND: ALAN SCOTT

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE OF ORDER: 7 DECEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The trustee's costs be paid out of the bankrupt's estate. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 209 OF 2004

BETWEEN: HENRIETTE PIEPKORN

APPLICANT

AND: ALAN SCOTT

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 7 DECEMBER 2004

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This application by Ms Piepkorn is a consequence of my decision in Piepkorn v Minister of Employment and Training [2004] FCA 1157. In that matter I dismissed Ms Piepkorn's application as incompetent on the grounds that, as she was an undischarged bankrupt, the cause of action she sought to enforce was and remained vested in her trustee in bankruptcy. 2 In the present application Ms Piepkorn seeks under s 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ("the Act") to have the sequestration order made against her annulled seemingly on the ground that I ought be satisfied the order ought not to have been made. No supporting affidavit setting out the grounds upon which annulment is sought has been filed in accordance with O 77 r 42(1) of the Federal Court Rules. The Court has power to dispense with compliance with the Rules: see O 1 r 8. As no useful purpose would be served either by refusing or by adjourning the application because of the non-compliance with O 77 r 42(1), I intend to dispense with compliance with that rule.