Prodan v Williams [2003] FCA 136 (6 February 2003)

Last Updated: 4 March 2003

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Prodan v Williams [2003] FCA 136

ILIE PRODAN v LEE MALCOLM WILLIAMS

Q 198 OF 2002

DOWSETT J

6 FEBRUARY 2003

BRISBANE VIA VIDEO LINK

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 198 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	ILIE PRODAN APPLICANT
AND:	LEE MALCOLM WILLIAMS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 FEBRUARY 2003
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE VIA VIDEO LINK

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. All motions by the applicant are dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motions.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 198 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	ILIE PRODAN APPLICANT
AND:	LEE MALCOLM WILLIAMS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	6 FEBRUARY 2003
PLACE:	BRISBANE VIA VIDEO LINK

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 I have before me an application for an extension of time in which to appeal from a sequestration order made against the applicant in the Federal Magistrates Court on 30 July 2002. There are also two motions. They appear to be misconceived in that they proceed upon the basis that persons who are said to be co-owners of property with the applicant should be parties in the bankruptcy proceedings. That is clearly incorrect. In any event, to the extent that the notices of motion seek directions, they are now irrelevant. The applicant has declined to indicate to me whether or not he wishes me to hear the application for an extension of time. He having applied for such an order and declined to prosecute his application, the application is dismissed. The supporting motions are also necessarily dismissed. I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application and of the motions.

2 The applicant also applies for costs. The application is clearly misconceived. He is an unsuccessful applicant. There will be no order as to his costs. However, as I have said, he must bear the respondent's costs of the application and of the motions.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated: 4 March 2003

The Applicant appeared In Person.
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Farrellys Lawyers
Date of Hearing:	6 February 2003
Date of Judgment:	6 February 2003