Case: N1202/01A v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs (2002) 68 ALD 21
Outcome: cited
if the period of time between his Honour's judgment and the publication of written reasons is sufficient to explain the delay, it is necessary to look at the merits of the proposed appeal to determine whether or not special reasons have been shown as to why there should be an extension of time ( N1202/01A v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs (2002) 68 ALD 21 at [13]). No draft notice of appeal has been prepared by Mr Conley and he does not seek an adjournment of this application in order to prepare that document. In the absence of any draft notice of appeal, I repeatedly asked Mr Conley to identify the proposed grounds of appeal. In response, Mr Conley consistently raised the same ground of appeal, that he had filed substantial material before his Honour and that his Honour had not and could not have read all of the material in detail in the time available to him. The consequence of that alleged failure was said to be that his Honour did not consider the evidence in the filed material and its relationship to the ground there pressed. The contention before his Honour was that the proceedings in this Court ('the bankruptcy proceedings') were commenced and continued by the respondent ('the Bank') as an abuse of process. The abuse of process is said to be the issuing of the bankruptcy proceedings by the Bank for the purpose of delaying indefinitely proceedings that Mr Conley had commenced against the Bank in the New South Wales Supreme Court ('the Supreme Court proceedings'). The Supreme Court proceedings concern the manner in which the Bank, as mortgagee, exercised a power of sale over Mr Conley's home. When asked to identify any evidence in the material tendered before his Honour directly probative of that assertion, Mr Conley was unable to do so. In fact, he conceded that there was no direct evidence of that nature. The evidence that was tendered, which included the statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court proceedings, concerned the matters in dispute in those proceedings. Mr Conley's submission is that his Honour should have inferred from the whole of that evidence that the bankruptcy proceedings in this Court were an abuse of process. Some difficulty arises in substantiating that allegation of abuse of process because the Supreme Court proceedings were commenced on 26 June 2006, almost 5 months after the issue of the bankruptcy notice founding the proceedings in this Court. It is hard to understand how the bankruptcy proceedings could have been commenced with a view to delaying indefinitely Supreme Court proceedings which had not yet been commenced. However, Mr Conley asserts that the Bank would have been aware from previous proceedings against it in the District Court of New South Wales ('the District Court proceedings') that he intended to commence the Supreme Court proceedings. This matter has a complex litigation history which need not be set out here. The primary judge in his reasons set out that history in some detail, referring to the District Court proceedings, proceedings in the Local Court of New South Wales and the Supreme Court proceedings (at [1] to [9]). While his Honour did not refer in detail to the evidence before him, he was satisfied that there ' is a bona fide dispute that Mr Conley could raise in litigation to contest the exercise of the power of sale ' (at [5]). His Honour was also satisfied that the statement of claim in the Supreme Court proceedings discloses a bona fide cause of action which was not colourable as an abuse of process (at [11]) . His Honour noted that it was for the trustee in bankruptcy to decide whether to prosecute the Supreme Court proceedings if a sequestration order were made (at [20]). The primary judge, having been presented with an admission by Mr Conley that he was insolvent, considered his task to be an inquiry as to whether Mr Conley had shown sufficient cause why a sequestration order ought not to be made pursuant to s 52(2)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (at [13] to [14]). His Honour had regard to the public interest and concluded that he was not so satisfied (at [20] to [21]). Although Mr Conley submits that the primary judge should have inferred from the whole of the evidence before him that the bankruptcy proceedings in this Court were an abuse of process, no allegation of an abuse of process was clearly presented to his Honour. Mr Conley refers me to the first ground in his notice of grounds of opposition to the creditor's petition filed in this Court before his Honour. Ground 1 in that notice states: ' The Applicant is manipulating the Court System to avoid or make it as difficult as possible for the Respondent to progress an ongoing claim against the Applicant in future court proceedings involving the fraudulent mortgagee sale by the Applicant of a property previously owned by the Respondent. ' By reference to the transcript before the primary judge, it is apparent that this ground was not pressed or dealt with in any detail before his Honour. The only reference to a possible abuse of process that the parties identified in the transcript of the proceedings before his Honour is a statement made by Mr Conley in the context of a discussion of the effect of the bankruptcy on him. Mr Conley submitted that the bankruptcy proceedings were intrusive, that he was unable because of personal reasons to pursue his proceedings and that: '[i] t is a very curious matter, because it is only doing this to make it as difficult as possible for me to proceed in the Supreme Court. ' That submission, in the absence of any evidence, was insufficient to raise for consideration an allegation as serious as an abuse of process. It did not provide sufficient support to ground 1 in the notice of opposition. An affidavit was tendered before his Honour which had been filed in the Federal Magistrates Court by Mr Conley on 6 March 2006. It annexed a number of medical reports on which Mr Conley relied. That affidavit included a paragraph stating in general terms that the respondent was attempting to prevent Mr Conley from pursuing further claims in the Supreme Court. His Honour's attention was not drawn to the paragraph which, in any event, is cast in an inadmissible form and has the difficulties referred to at 11 above.