• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

JAGOT J: 1 These reasons for judgment concern an interlocutory application by the second respondent to release certain funds held by the Court for the purposes set out in [1] of the interlocutory application dated 18 May 2020. 2 Following oral argument on 29 May 2020, I indicated to the second respondent that I was not prepared in the exercise of my discretion to release any funds to the respondents unless they were able to proffer security for the repayment of those funds in the event that their claims were unsuccessful. In circumstances where those funds represent funds that otherwise should be available to creditors, it seemed to me to be contrary to the interests of justice to allow the respondents to access those funds without having in place effective security. 3 On 29 May 2020, I adjourned the proceedings in order to provide to the respondents an opportunity to ascertain whether they could proffer any suitable security to secure the proposed release of funds and to negotiate with the applicant in order to ascertain whether the security was acceptable to the applicant. 4 At the further case management hearing today, 19 June 2020, the second respondent indicated that there was no security that could be proffered by the respondents or, at the least, by the first respondent. There is no evidence which discloses whether the second respondent (or, for that matter, the first respondent) is in possession of any asset which would enable security to be provided. In these circumstances, I consider that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to release funds to the respondents, being funds which would otherwise be available to the creditors, for the purpose of the respondents defending their proceedings. 5 In this regard, I have taken into account the following: (1) the affidavit evidence on behalf of the applicant about funds which have been paid into the National Australia Bank account of the first respondent between March and October 2019 totalling $1,045,835.46 (see [14] of the affidavit of Colin Brown dated 6 May 2020); and (2) the absence of information from the respondents as to the whereabouts of those funds and the lack of any explanation as to why none of those funds are available for the payment of the respondents' ongoing legal costs. 6 I also note that I have consistently refused applications made by Mr Philip Kapp to appear on behalf of the first respondent. The first respondent is a company and needs to appear by a lawyer other than with leave of the Court. I have been unwilling to exercise any discretion to give Mr Kapp leave to appear in circumstances where he is not a lawyer, is not enrolled as a legal practitioner, and is an undischarged bankrupt. Mr Kapp has sought to avoid these consequences by arranging for him to be appointed as the trustee of the first respondent. However, in my view, the first respondent is the company itself, albeit in its capacity as trustee for the Twin Trust, and Mr Kapp's apparent appointment as the trustee of the Twin Trust does not provide a sufficient basis to enable Mr Kapp, an undischarged bankrupt, to appear on behalf of the company which is the first respondent. 7 In these circumstances, my conclusion is that the interlocutory application dated 18 May 2020 should be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jagot.