FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Samootin v Wagner [2007] FCA 1366 Samootin v Wagner & Anor [2007] FMCA 1100 upheld ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN v GISELLE MONIKA WAGNER AND ADRIAN HOLMES NSD 1495 OF 2007 GYLES J 21 AUGUST 2007 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1495 OF 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN Applicant AND: GISELLE MONIKA WAGNER First Respondent ADRIAN HOLMES Second Respondent JUDGE: GYLES J DATE OF ORDER: 21 AUGUST 2007 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal is dismissed. 2. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents. 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 NSD 1495 OF 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA BETWEEN: ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN Applicant AND: GISELLE MONIKA WAGNER First Respondent ADRIAN HOLMES Second Respondent JUDGE: GYLES J DATE: 21 AUGUST 2007 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 4 July 2007 Smith FM made orders dismissing an application made by the present applicant for annulment of a sequestration order, also dismissing what were described as interlocutory applications filed on 15 May 2007 and 15 June 2007 which related to a request that parties be subpoenaed, and also made an order for costs (Samootin v Wagner & Anor [2007] FMCA 1100). 2 This is an application for an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal from the dismissal of the application for annulment, and, also, a separate but linked application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of what were described as the interlocutory applications. The leave of this Court is needed in relation to the dismissal of the application for an annulment as the applicant was out of time. 3 The draft notice of appeal which is sought to be filed in relation to the dismissal of the application for annulment has been marked for identification "1", and will be placed with the file. It does not disclose any ground of appeal which can be identified which, in turn, identifies any error in the decision of the learned Federal Magistrate. It contains general assertions which are not tied back to the judgment sought to be appealed from, and does not disclose any arguable ground of appeal. The same can be said of the grounds which are identified in the affidavit in support of the application for leave in relation to the dismissal of the so-called interlocutory applications. 4 A number of affidavits sworn by the applicant containing annexures have been read, subject to objection. I have also read an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents which sets out a chronology of the proceedings in the matter, which I will not go into here, but are, in any event, summarised, so far as is relevant, in the decision sought to be appealed from. 5 There are situations where a litigant in person clearly enough identifies a proper arguable complaint about a decision without being able to put it into technical language or into absolutely proper form. In circumstances like that, the Court will usually adopt a lenient approach to compliance with the Rules in an endeavour to ensure that justice is done. 6 In the present case, having read the judgment below and having read the material put before me, I simply cannot see the slightest basis for a ground of appeal being re-drafted in a fashion which would make the matter worthwhile to be put before a Full Court. The applicant, no doubt, has a deep sense of grievance over the events which have occurred and is quite unsatisfied with the manner in which the matter was dealt with in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and on appeal, and then in the bankruptcy proceedings and in the annulment proceedings. A feeling of grievance, however, is not a cause of action, and a feeling of grievance about a decision does not establish arguable grounds of appeal. 7 I therefore have no alternative but to dismiss each application and I order that the applicant pay the costs of the respondents. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles. Associate: Dated: 29 August 2007 The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: Ms K Dawson Solicitor for the Respondents: Mallesons Stephen Jaques Date of Hearing: 21 August 2007 Date of Judgment: 21 August 2007