Day v Gould in the matter of Gould [2002] FCA 1250

Day v Gould in the matter of Gould [2002] FCA 1250

The respondent's proposed notice of motion raised the same issue already considered by Madgwick J, with no evidentiary material or submission showing that the summonses were oppressive, improperly issued, or otherwise defective. In the context of a series of objections and challenges by the respondent to his bankruptcy and its administration, the notice of motion was an abuse of the process of the Court and frivolous and vexatious, so the Registrar should refuse to accept it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Matter / Request for Direction Pursuant to O 46 R 7 a of the Federal Court Rules Concerning Filing of Respondent's Notice of Motion
Outcome
Registrar directed to refuse to accept the respondent's notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['examination Summonses' 'notice of Motion' 'abuse of Process' 'frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings' "registrar's Refusal to Accept Filing"]
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['examination Summonses' 'notice of Motion' 'abuse of Process' 'frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings' "registrar's Refusal to Accept Filing"]

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Matter / Request for Direction Pursuant to O 46 R 7 a of the Federal Court Rules Concerning Filing of Respondent's Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Registrar should be directed to refuse to accept the respondent's notice of motion seeking to set aside examination summonses issued under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) or vacate the hearing date for examinations." 'Whether the proposed notice of motion was an abuse of the process of the Court and frivolous and vexatious.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's proposed notice of motion raised the same issue already considered by Madgwick J, with no evidentiary material or submission showing that the summonses were oppressive, improperly issued, or otherwise defective. In the context of a series of objections and challenges by the respondent to his bankruptcy and its administration, the notice of motion was an abuse of the process of the Court and frivolous and vexatious, so the Registrar should refuse to accept it.

Court Disposition

Registrar directed to refuse to accept the respondent's notice of motion.

Orders

  • ["The Registrar refuse to accept the respondent's notice of motion."]