You are here:
AustLII >>
Databases >>
Federal Court of Australia >>
2011 >>
[2011] FCA 31
[Database Search]
[Name Search]
[Recent Decisions]
[Noteup]
[Download]
[Help]
Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 31 (28 January 2011)
Last Updated: 31 January 2011
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd
[2011] FCA 31
|
Citation:
|
Russo v Private Funds Management Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 31
|
|
|
|
Parties:
|
ANGELO PETER RUSSO v PRIVATE FUNDS MANAGEMENT
PTY LTD and ANNETTE JOY CONN
|
|
|
|
File number:
|
SAD 8 of 2011
|
|
|
|
Judge:
|
BESANKO J
|
|
|
|
Date of judgment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Place:
|
Adelaide
|
|
|
|
Division:
|
GENERAL DIVISION
|
|
|
|
Category:
|
No catchwords.
|
|
|
|
Number of paragraphs:
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Applicant:
|
The Applicant appeared in person
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondents:
|
Mr L Rowley
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondents:
|
Madsen Rowley
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Trustee:
|
Mr A Kelly
|
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
|
|
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANGELO PETER RUSSOApplicant
|
|
AND:
|
PRIVATE FUNDS MANAGEMENT PTY
LTDFirst Respondent
ANNETTE JOY CONN Second Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
DATE OF ORDER:
|
|
|
WHERE MADE:
|
|
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- The
Notice of Motion dated 21 January 2011 be dismissed.
- The
applicant pay the costs of the first and second respondents of and incidental to
the Notice of Motion dated 21 January 2011.
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
|
|
|
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
|
|
|
GENERAL DIVISION
|
SAD 8 of 2011
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
ANGELO PETER RUSSO Applicant
|
|
AND:
|
PRIVATE FUNDS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD First Respondent
ANNETTE JOY CONN Second Respondent
|
|
JUDGE:
|
BESANKO J
|
|
DATE:
|
28 JANUARY 2011
|
|
PLACE:
|
ADELAIDE
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
- This
is an application for a stay of a sequestration order made by a Registrar of the
Court on 29 September 2010. The applicant made
an application for review of the
order and that application was heard by a Federal Magistrate in December 2010.
The Federal Magistrate
refused the application for review (Russo v Private
Funds Management Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] FMCA 8).
- The
application for a stay is made by notice of notion dated 21 January 2011. It is
supported by an affidavit of the applicant sworn
on 21 January 2011. The notice
of notion came on for mention or hearing before me on Tuesday 25 January 2011. I
adjourned the hearing
of the application in order to give the applicant the
opportunity to seek legal advice.
- The
application has come on before me again this morning. Mr Russo appears in
person. The application is opposed by the first and
the second respondents and
by the Trustee in Bankruptcy.
- The
application for a stay is made pursuant to O 52 r 17 of the Federal
Court Rules. I have had regard to the authorities of Coleman v Lazy Days
Investments Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1442; (1995) 55 FCR 297, Freeman v National Australia Bank
Ltd [2002] FCA 427, and the other authorities referred to in the Practice
Book. There are two issues to be considered. First, I must consider whether
the
applicant for a stay has established an arguable case. Secondly, I must consider
the balance of convenience. Reference was made
to various paragraphs in the
Federal Magistrate’s reasons for judgment and I refer in particular to
those paragraphs which
deal with the value of the Beaumont property (see [54])
and with the amount paid into the Supreme Court (see [61]). I have read the
reasons of the Federal Magistrate carefully and I am not satisfied that a case
of arguable error has been established. In addition,
the parties have referred
me to various matters which might be considered relevant to the balance of
convenience. I am not satisfied
that even had a case of arguable error been
shown, the balance of convenience would favour the granting of a stay. In those
circumstances,
I refuse the application for a stay and the notice of motion
dated 21 January 2011 is dismissed. I order accordingly.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered
paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable
Justice
Besanko.
|
Associate:
Dated: 28 January 2011
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/31.html