Francis Waldron v GR Finance Limited [2011] FCA 128 (21 February 2011)

Last Updated: 22 February 2011

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Francis Waldron v GR Finance Limited [2011] FCA 128

Citation:		Francis Waldron v GR Finance Limited [2011] FCA 128
Appeal from:		GR Finance Limited v Waldron [2010] FMCA 257
Parties:		FRANCIS GERARD WALDRON v GR FINANCE LIMITED (ACN 093 549 305)
File number:		NSD 451 of 2010
Judge:		SIOPIS J
Date of judgment:		21 February 2011
Date of hearing:	8 November 2010
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	10
Counsel for the Appellant:	Ms K Balendra
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Bowles Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	The Respondent did not appear.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 451 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	FRANCIS GERARD WALDRON Appellant
AND:	GR FINANCE LIMITED (ACN 093 549 305) Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 FEBRUARY 2011
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
   

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 451 of 2010

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	FRANCIS GERARD WALDRON Appellant
AND:	GR FINANCE LIMITED (ACN 093 549 305) Respondent

JUDGE:	SIOPIS J
DATE:	21 february 2011
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrate to make a sequestration order against the estate of Mr Francis Gerard Waldron. This appeal was heard at the same time as the appeal against the decision of the same Federal Magistrate on 9 March 2010, to make a sequestration order against the estate of Mrs Josephine Carmel Waldron, Mr Waldron’s wife. I dismissed that appeal (Josephine Waldron v GR Finance Limited [2011] FCA 127). In my reasons for judgment in that matter, I set out the factual background relevant to the disposition of that appeal. The same factual material is relevant to the disposition of this appeal. I will not repeat it, but it should be taken to be incorporated into these reasons for judgment.
2. The sequestration order against Mr Waldron’s estate was made on application by the respondent, GR Finance Limited, by way of an amended creditor’s petition dated 12 March 2010, which substituted for an earlier petition by another creditor, Manna Trading International Pty Ltd.
3. GR Finance alleged in the petition that Mr Waldron owed it the amount of $811,238.07. That amount comprised the amount due under a judgment which had been obtained against Mr and Mrs Waldron in favour of GR Finance in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 15 May 2008; together with accrued interest under the judgment.
4. On 7 April 2010, Mr Waldron filed a notice stating grounds of opposition to GR Finance’s petition. Mr Waldron relied upon the same grounds of opposition as Mrs Waldron had relied upon to oppose GR Finance’s petition.
5. At the hearing of the petition before the Federal Magistrate on 8 April 2010, GR Finance relied on an affidavit to the effect that the amount of $811,238.07 was still owing. Mr Waldron relied upon the same contentions in opposition to the petition as Mrs Waldron had relied upon in her unsuccessful defence to GR Finance’s petition heard by the same Federal Magistrate a month earlier. The gravamen of Mr Waldron’s contentions was that the effect of the payment of the settlement sum to GR Finance consequent upon settlement of the proceeding against the valuers, was that Mr Waldron did not owe the debt relied upon in GR Finance’s petition, or owed a significantly lesser amount.
6. The Federal Magistrate noted that Mr Waldron had not tendered any evidence in support of his contentions and went onto observe that the parties treated the evidence tendered at the hearing of GR Finance’s petition against Mrs Waldron, as evidence which was tendered in this case. Further, said the Federal Magistrate, no submissions were made by Mr Waldron, which were not made by Mrs Waldron in opposition to the petition against her.
7. The Federal Magistrate then said that he had re-read his reasons for decision in relation to the petition against Mrs Waldron, but was of the view that his analysis in that case of the impact of the settlement agreement and the payment of the settlement sum, was correct. The Federal Magistrate adopted his reasons for decision in the previous case, and made an order for the sequestration of Mr Waldron’s estate on the basis of those reasons.
8. On 28 April 2010, Mr Waldron filed a notice of appeal in this Court relying upon identical grounds to those relied upon by Mrs Waldron in her appeal.
9. As mentioned, this appeal was heard at the same time as the appeal by Mrs Waldron. The appeals were argued together and the same contentions were made and relied on by each of the appellants in respect of each appeal.
10. It follows that for the reasons which I have expressed in my earlier decision (Josephine Waldron v GR Finance Limited [2011] FCA 127), this appeal is dismissed.
    

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Siopis.

Associate:

Dated: 21 February 2011