FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Mircevski v Pattison [2011] FCA 740 Citation: Mircevski v Pattison [2011] FCA 740 Parties: ALEX MIRCEVSKI v PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON and PATTISON BUSINESS RECOVERY & INSOLVENCY SPECIALISTS PTY LTD (ACN 098 345 343) and INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICE AUSTRALIA and DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR TAXATION File number: VID 193 of 2011 Judge: MARSHALL J Date of judgment: 25 May 2011 Date of hearing: 25 May 2011 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Number of paragraphs: 3 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr G Slater Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr P Fary Solicitor for the First Respondent: Meltzer Green Lawyers Counsel for the Third Respondent: Ms C Gobbo Solicitor for the Third Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Fourth Respondent: Mr J Matheson of ATO Legal Services Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent ATO Legal Services IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 193 of 2011 BETWEEN: ALEX MIRCEVSKI Applicant AND: PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON First Respondent PATTISON BUSINESS RECOVERY & INSOLVENCY SPECIALISTS PTY LTD (ACN 098 345 343) Second Respondent INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICE AUSTRALIA Third Respondent DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR TAXATION Fourth Respondent JUDGE: MARSHALL J DATE OF ORDER: 25 MAY 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The substantive application is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding. 3. The applicant pay the third respondent's costs of the proceeding. 4. There is liberty to apply on the question of costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 193 of 2011 BETWEEN: ALEX MIRCEVSKI Applicant AND: PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON First Respondent PATTISON BUSINESS RECOVERY & INSOLVENCY SPECIALISTS PTY LTD (ACN 098 345 343) Second Respondent INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICE AUSTRALIA Third Respondent DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR TAXATION Fourth Respondent JUDGE: MARSHALL J DATE: 25 MAY 2011 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 At the hearing of this matter the applicant sought leave, through his counsel, Mr Slater, "to withdraw this matter before the court in whole". This, in effect, was an application to discontinue the proceeding. 2 Counsel for the first respondent, Mr Fary, opposed the applicant's application to discontinue and made submissions seeking that the matter be dismissed instead. Mr Fary submitted that "[t]oday is the hearing. There is no evidence before the court and so the court is in a position to dismiss the application." Mr Slater then confirmed that the applicant had no evidence to present on his application. 3 I found Mr Fary's submissions for dismissal of the matter persuasive and consequently made the orders set out above. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall. Associate: Dated: 29 June 2011