Mystery behind bankrupt's bid to be excused

Bankrupt Dolores Lavin, who has applied to have her
summons for public examination discharged on the
basis of an unspecified medical condition

ONE can only imagine what Worrell's Aaron Lucan is making of the application by self-declared bankrupt Dolores Lavin to be exempted from being examined about her financial affairs.

In the Federal Circuit Court yesterday Lavin's barrister Geoff McDonald said that a 'medico' had been identified who could provide the expert testimony upon which Lavin will rely in her application to have her summons to appear at a public examination discharged.

The court has previously heard that an initial assessment of Lavin's undisclosed medical condition had proved unsatisfactory for the purposes of the application because that doctor had been unwilling to sign the appropriate code of conduct declaration as it relates to independence. However a sufficiently independent specialist has since been identified.

At one point Judge Nicholas Manousaridis asked McDonald who was instructing him. When McDonald replied: "solicitors", the judge asked: "Who's instructing them?"

McDonald's reply, if there was one, was indistinct but outside the court he counselled against making "dangerous assumptions".

Toppi seeking to bankrupt ex-bestie

Luxe Studios is now at 279 - 283 Liverpool Street
Photo: SiN Images

Paola Toppi's lawyers will appeal a judgement handed down in the Federal Circuit Court last week which further delays bankruptcy proceedings the Sydney restaurateur initiated last year against her former friend, the photographic agent Dolores Lavin.

Philip Beazley of Beazley Singleton Lawyers, confirmed yesterday that he will file an appeal on behalf of Toppi against the June 13, 2014 judgement of Nicholas Manousaridis.

The judge ruled last week that the period for compliance with a bankruptcy notice served on Lavin by Toppi and her husband Neil Cunningham on November 29, 2013 be extended for a fourth time to allow Lavin to make an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court.

Lavin is seeking to appeal the decision of the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal, which last month dismissed her application to have an earlier judgement ordering her to pay Toppi $871,016.56c overturned.

The earlier judgement, handed down on September 12, 2013, gave Toppi and Cunningham the green light to serve Lavin with the bankruptcy notice but by the time they did, Lavin had already filed an appeal. 

Since then, Lavin has applied to have the period for compliance with the bankruptcy notice extended three times while waiting for her appeal to be heard. In the course of obtaining extensions, Lavin has also won an order staying execution of the Supreme Court judgement. But the Court of Appeal dismissed her application on May 23, 2014. 

According to the Manousaridis judgement of June 13, the extensions in the notice compliance period have been essential in enabling Lavin to avoid committing an act of bankruptcy, an event which would potentially expose her to devastating loss.