Tantner-Issitch v Worrell & Ors B33/2000 [2000] HCATrans 615 (17 October 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B33 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH

Applicant

and

IVOR WORRELL

First Respondent

HILARIO RICABLANCA and GREGORIA RICABLANCA

Second Respondents

Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B34 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

LUDMILLA ISSITCH aka LUDMILLA TANTNER-ISSITCH

Applicant

and

IVOR WORRELL

Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J

GUMMOW J

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY 17 OCTOBER 2000, AT 3.25 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

___________________

McHUGH J: Perhaps the matter should be called three times outside the Court, although no oral submissions were expected.

COURT OFFICER: No response, your Honour.

McHUGH J: Yes, thank you.

In this matter, the parties notified the Court that they did not seek to supplement their written summaries with oral argument. That being so, the Court is now in a position to give its reasons, having read the applications and the summaries of argument.

In these matters, the applicant seeks special leave to appeal from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court, dismissing appeals against two judgments of Mr Justice Dowsett in litigation respecting the estate of a bankrupt, Mr S. Tantner.

Mr Tantner died in 1996. Justice Dowsett dismissed an application by the present applicant for an order under section 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) annulling the bankruptcy. His Honour also made orders against the applicant on an application by the trustee of the bankrupt estate in respect of moneys withdrawn from

Mr Tantner's bank account at a time when the applicant was his wife. The trustee relied upon the provision concerning settlements in section 120 of the Bankruptcy Act.

The primary judge formed a poor view of the applicant's credibility and declined to act on any part of her evidence to the extent that it was self-serving. We are of opinion that on each application there are insufficient prospects of success on an appeal to this Court to warrant a grant of special leave. In each application, therefore, special leave is refused with costs.

AT 3.28 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED