Day v Gould, in the matter of Gould [2002] FCA 1249 (1 October 2002)

Last Updated: 10 October 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Day v Gould, in the matter of Gould [2002] FCA 1249

IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN GOULD

JULIAN DAY & ANOR v STEPHEN GOULD

N 7025 of 2002

STONE J

1 OCTOBER 2002

SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7025 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	JULIAN DAY FIRST APPLICANT
	ALAN MANLY SECOND APPLICANT
AND:	STEPHEN GOULD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 OCTOBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The notice of motion is dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7025 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	JULIAN DAY FIRST APPLICANT
	ALAN MANLY SECOND APPLICANT
AND:	STEPHEN GOULD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	1 OCTOBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 I have before me a notice of motion by Mr Lars Sorhus, a recipient of a summons issued on the application of Julian Day and Alan Manly, creditors in the bankruptcy of Stephen Gould. The notice of motion asks me to strike out the summons, filed on 5 June 2002, to attend for examination under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). I have listened to the submissions made by Mr Sorhus on his own behalf, and also those made on his behalf by Mr Gould.

2 It would seem that this issue has previously been considered by Madgwick J. In a judgment dated 16 July 2002, his Honour considered a notice of motion filed by Mr Gould asking the Court to strike out summonses issued on a number of people, including Mr Sorhus; Day v Gould, in the matter of Gould [2002] FCA 936 at [4]. It is not entirely clear whether or not Mr Sorhus' application is in fact the same as that which was before Madgwick J. However, as was the case before Madgwick J, there is no evidentiary material before me to suggest that the summons is oppressive or that it has been improperly issued. There has been nothing said in the submissions of Mr Sorhus, or Mr Gould, which has persuaded me that there is any deficiency with the summons.

3 For these reasons the notice of motion is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Stone.

Associate:

Dated: 10 October 2002

Counsel for the First and Second Applicant:	The First and Second Applicant did not appear
Counsel for Mr Sorhus:	Mr Sorhus appeared in person, assisted by the Respondent
Counsel for the Respondent:	The Respondent appeared in person
Date of Hearing:	1 October 2002
Date of Judgment:	1 October 2002