Lo Pilato (Trustee), in the matter of Ghougassian (Bankrupt) v Ghougassian (No 2) [2022] FCA 1531
Daniel's adjournment application was refused because the late submissions caused no conceded prejudice, the court book comprised material already known to Daniel and his advisers and could be used electronically, and the subpoenaed DPP material did not justify delaying the hearing of the Trustee's amended summons. Michael and Katrin's adjournment application was granted on a narrow basis because the court book included material not previously notified to them and the remaining allocated hearing time was insufficient to determine the amended summonses.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 06 December 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Practice and Procedure Application for Adjournment in Proceedings Concerning Amended Summonses by a Trustee of Bankrupt Estates / Applications for Adjournment Made on the Morning of the Scheduled Hearing of the Amended Summonses
- Outcome
- In NSD 116 of 2022 the respondent's application for adjournment was refused. In NSD 117 of 2022 the hearing of the amended summons was adjourned and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment.
- Legal Topics
- ['adjournment Application' 'late Filing and Service of Material' 'electronic Court Book' 'subpoenaed Material' 'prejudice' 'costs Thrown Away' 'trustees for Sale Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw)']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Adjournment in Proceedings Concerning Amended Summonses by a Trustee of Bankrupt Estates / Applications for Adjournment Made on the Morning of the Scheduled Hearing of the Amended Summonses
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether Daniel Ghougassian's application for adjournment should be granted because the Trustee's submissions and court book were served late, the court book was provided electronically and not in hard copy, and subpoenaed material from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had not been fully reviewed." "Whether Michael Ghougassian and Katrin Ghougassian's application for adjournment should be granted where the court book included material not previously notified and the allocated hearing time had largely been used by the adjournment application." 'What costs orders should be made in relation to the adjournment applications.']
Ratio Decidendi
Daniel's adjournment application was refused because the late submissions caused no conceded prejudice, the court book comprised material already known to Daniel and his advisers and could be used electronically, and the subpoenaed DPP material did not justify delaying the hearing of the Trustee's amended summons. Michael and Katrin's adjournment application was granted on a narrow basis because the court book included material not previously notified to them and the remaining allocated hearing time was insufficient to determine the amended summonses.
Court Disposition
In NSD 116 of 2022 the respondent's application for adjournment was refused. In NSD 117 of 2022 the hearing of the amended summons was adjourned and the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment.
Orders
- ["NSD 116 of 2022: The respondent's application for an adjournment of the hearing of the amended summons is refused." "NSD 116 of 2022: The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of the application for adjournment." 'NSD 117 of 2022: The hearing of the amended summons is to be adjourned to a date to be...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment