FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Stankovic v The Hills Shire Council [2012] FCA 521 Citation: Stankovic v The Hills Shire Council [2012] FCA 521 Parties: MICHAEL STANKOVIC v THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL, TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE and JASON SHANE CRONAN File number: NSD 690 of 2011 Judge: EMMETT J Date of judgment: 4 May 2012 Date of hearing: 4 May 2012 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Counsel for the applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the first respondent: M Condon Solicitor for the first respondent: M Pearce of The Hills Shire Council Counsel for the second and third respondents: D Ash Solicitor for the second and third respondents: Watson & Watson Solicitor for Kent Attorneys: T Orlizki of Kent Attorneys IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 690 of 2011 BETWEEN: MICHAEL STANKOVIC Applicant AND: THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL First Respondent TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE Second Respondent JASON SHANE CRONAN Third Respondent JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE OF ORDER: 4 MAY 2012 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's application for an adjournment of today's hearing be refused. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 690 of 2011 BETWEEN: MICHAEL STANKOVIC Applicant AND: THE HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL First Respondent TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE Second Respondent JASON SHANE CRONAN Third Respondent JUDGE: EMMETT J DATE: 4 MAY 2012 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This proceeding, commenced on 19 May 2011, is an application to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal from a sequestration order made in respect of the estate of the applicant on 12 May 2009. When the matter was before me on 9 March 2012, the applicant was represented by a solicitor, Mr Spencer Ferrier. It was intimated at that stage that some time was required so that an application could be made to the Family Court for the release of funds to enable the applicant to retain solicitors to represent him. I asked whether, if I listed the application for an extension of time for today, that would give the applicant sufficient time for him to make his application to the Family Court. The response given was that the applicant was prepared to accept short notice because of the nature of the matter. I made clear on 9 March 2012 that this matter would proceed on 4 May 2012, that is, today. 2 When the matter was called on today, the applicant applied for an adjournment of the hearing. He relies on an affidavit sworn on 26 April 2012, in which he says that, on 30 March 2012, a judge of the Family Court of Australia ordered that the sum of $150,000 be released to him. On 10 April 2012, he attended the office of a firm of solicitors. He collected a cheque in the sum of $150,000, which he banked on 13 April 2012. He says that, on 24 April 2012, he met not Mr Ferrier, who as a courtesy to the Court attended this morning, but another solicitor. The applicant said that he wanted to instruct the other solicitor to act for him today. He was told that the other solicitor could not be available to appear for him today because of another commitment. The applicant says that he wants that solicitor to appear for him, because she has a strong understanding of his case and is able to present it in a clear and concise way. In the circumstances outlined, I do not regard that evidence as constituting any basis for vacating today's hearing. The application for an adjournment should be rejected. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate: Dated: 25 May 2012