FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2013] FCA 345 Citation: Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council [2013] FCA 345 Parties: IVAN JERAY v BLUE MOUNTAINS CITY COUNCIL File number: NSD 2166 of 2012 Judge: EDMONDS J Date of judgment: 15 April 2013 Date of hearing: 12 April 2013 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 10 Solicitor for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Marsdens Law Group IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 2166 of 2012 BETWEEN: IVAN JERAY Applicant AND: BLUE MOUNTAINS CITY COUNCIL Respondent JUDGE: EDMONDS J DATE OF ORDER: 15 APRIL 2013 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. 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 2166 of 2012 BETWEEN: IVAN JERAY Applicant AND: BLUE MOUNTAINS CITY COUNCIL Respondent JUDGE: EDMONDS J DATE: 15 APRIL 2013 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Introduction 1 On Friday 12 April 2013, I heard an interlocutory application by the applicant, an unrepresented litigant, to set aside the decision and orders made by District Registrar Wall on 27 February 2013. Certain ancillary relief was sought, but the applicant's application essentially sought review of the District Registrar's decision to dismiss an application for interim orders to extend the time for compliance with a bankruptcy notice and, ultimately, to set aside that bankruptcy notice. 2 On the same day, I dismissed the interlocutory application with costs and indicated to the parties that I would publish my reasons at an early date. These are my reasons as well as my reasons for rejecting two further applications made by the applicant during the course of the hearing, the first for an adjournment and the second that I recuse myself from hearing his substantive application. Background 3 The history of litigation between the parties goes back nearly five years and is summarised in the affidavit of Nelson Mauricio Arias-Alvarez sworn 4 April 2013 and filed the following day in support of the respondent's opposition to the applicant's application. 4 It is unnecessary to ventilate that history in these reasons nor the detail of previous bankruptcy proceedings brought by the respondent against the applicant which are also summarised in Mr Arias-Alvarez's affidavit. 5 For present purposes, the only background events I need to record are that: (1) On 20 November 2012 the respondent caused a bankruptcy notice to be issued to the applicant in respect of a total debt of $6,301.32. (2) On 27 February 2013, District Registrar Wall dismissed the applicant's application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, for declaratory relief and for interim orders extending time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice. (3) On 20 March 2013, the applicant filed his interlocutory application in the NSW registry of the Court along with an affidavit, sworn by him the same day, in support of his application. Apparently these documents were not served by the applicant on the respondent; if they were sent by post, they were not received (T 03.04.13, 4/10–35). (4) On 21 March 2013, District Registrar Wall published his reasons for dismissing the applicant's application on 27 February 2013. (5) On 3 April 2013, the applicant's interlocutory application came before me. The applicant informed the Court that he had only recently received the District Registrar's reasons and required further time to consider them (T 03.04.13, 2/24–43). The parties also informed the Court that the matter was originally listed for 10 April 2013 and that is when they expected it to be dealt with (T 03.04.13, 3/1–17). (6) On 3 April 2013, I set the applicant's application down for hearing at 9.30 am on 12 April 2013 despite the applicant's request that, because he was unrepresented, he needed further time to consider the Deputy Registrar's reasons (T 03.04.13, 7/5–9/30). The HEaring 6 At the outset the applicant made an application for the hearing to be adjourned and relied on an affidavit in support sworn by him the same day. The basis of the adjournment application was set out in para 5 of the affidavit in support as follows: 5. I am not prepared for the hearing of 12 April 2013 to review District Registrar Wall's decision of 27 February 2013 because: (a) The written reasons of the decision were not completed until 21 March 2013. (b) I did not view the reasons of the decision until 2 April 2013, as I was not at home and did not expect a directions hearing until 10 April 2013, as is indicated on my interlocutory application to review District Registrar Wall's decision. (c) I have not read the 14 judgments referred to in the reasons of the decision. (d) I do not yet understand the reason of the decision, which totals 9 pages. (e) I have not yet been able to seek free legal advice and/or conduct legal research. (f) I cannot afford legal representation, assistance or advice, I have no legal qualifications, I am working alone and I have limited resources in all cases whilst undertaking my TAFE studies. (g) I am also pursuing another case in the District Court of NSW, which commenced on 30 October 2012 and preparing for 6 appeals in the High Court. (h) I have recently been suffering from ongoing stress and anxiety. 7 I rejected the application on the ground that no intervening circumstance or event had occurred after the time I set the application down for hearing which impeded, in any way, the applicant's ability to read and consider the District Registrar's reasons for the dismissal of his application, or which otherwise adversely impacted, in a manner beyond the applicant's control, his ability to prepare his application for hearing. 8 Upon that rejection, the applicant immediately made an application that I recuse myself on one of three bases – that he was being prejudiced by being forced to proceed; that I had pre-judged his application by indicating on the previous occasion (3 April 2013) that the hearing of the application should not take very long; and my refusal to answer his question as to whether I was a friend of the District Registrar. I also rejected that application for the reason that it provided no substantive ground upon which I should recuse myself. 9 In relation to the application proper, the applicant canvassed a wide range of matters that had nothing to do with his application and everything to do with an account of his experience in proceedings before various courts from the time he first brought proceedings against the respondent in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court back in 2008. At one stage, I invited the applicant to sit down once he got everything off his chest (T 12.04.13, 6/8–19), but he subsequently declined to do so. In the end, I directed him to sit down and declined to hear him further. 10 The applicant did not identify any error in the reasons of the District Registrar and my review of those reasons did not disclose any error. In those circumstances, there was no alternative but to dismiss the application with costs. I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Edmonds. Associate: Dated: 15 April 2013