Liprini v Liprini

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me this morning a Notice of Motion filed by Dr Allan Stephen Liprini seeking a stay of orders made by Driver FM on 17 May 2011: see Liprini v Liprini [2011] FMCA 359. The motion also seeks an order that the stay remain in place pending the determination of Dr Liprini's appeal from the orders made by Driver FM, matter NSD 735 of 2011. 2 Federal Magistrate Driver had before him an application seeking an annulment of a bankruptcy arising from a sequestration order made against Dr Liprini by Smith FM on 3 September 2010. For the reasons appearing in Driver FM's judgment, his Honour refused to annul the bankruptcy. It therefore seems to me that there is nothing which gives rise to any ability on my part to grant a stay of the orders made by Driver FM. 3 The substance of what Dr Liprini said to me this morning is that he alleges serious matters against the trustee in bankruptcy Mr Pascoe. The statements which Dr Liprini made to me in court repeat the substance of his affidavit of 7 June 2011. As I understand, Mr Farrar, who appears for the trustee this morning, objects to the content of the affidavit. I can well understand the nature of the objection. It is sufficient to say that the affidavit contains unsupported allegations of dishonesty and serious impropriety against Mr Pascoe. Those allegations are not supported by evidence and amount to no more than bald assertions made against the trustee. 4 The substance of what Dr Liprini put to me this morning was that Mr Pascoe has no right to be the trustee because of the serious allegations that Dr Liprini makes against him. Dr Liprini points out that his estate is being eroded and that he wants to stop the funds from being dissipated. Whether or not that is an issue which is open to Dr Liprini to pursue in the appeal is not something that I can deal with this morning. What it does show, it seems to me, is that the matters which Dr Liprini wants to agitate this morning really amount to issues that he wishes to pursue on the appeal. 5 The motion before me this morning seems to me to be incompetent because there is nothing to stay and anything which Dr Liprini wishes to raise is a matter which can only be raised on the appeal. I make no comment as to whether the issues he wishes to canvass are properly the subject of the appeal. But as I have already said, the allegations are at the moment nothing more than unsupported assertions without any evidentiary basis. 6 Mr Farrar told me this morning that an application has been made in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an order that Dr Liprini be declared a vexatious litigant. I note what Mr Farrar says, but that is not something which arises before me today. The application is apparently listed in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 30 June 2011. Whether or not that will have any effect on the appeal is not something I can answer this morning. I do not know whether any similar application has been made in the Federal Court, but I note that Driver FM made reference to that issue in paragraph 11 of his judgment. 7 For the reasons set out above, the Notice of Motion filed by Dr Liprini on 7 June 2011 is dismissed. I will order that Dr Liprini pay the costs of that Notice of Motion. 8 I should add by way of a postscript that Dr Liprini has filed in court a Notice of Motion dated 21 June 2011 seeking an order that Mr Pascoe be added as a second respondent to the appeal because his name had been accidentally omitted from the Notice of Appeal. Mr Farrar did not oppose that course and I made that order before embarking upon argument on the Notice of Motion for a stay. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.