ACW v Du Bray (No 2)

A creditor petitioned the Federal Court of Australia for a sequestration order against the debtor, Lee Francis Du Bray. The indebtedness arose from a series of court orders spanning several years of litigation, including orders registering judgments delivered by courts in New Zealand. The debtor opposed the creditor’s petition and the making of a sequestration order on various grounds. The debtor claimed the Court could not be satisfied that debts were owing, that the creditor's petition was not properly verified, and requested the Court to "go behind" the main judgment ordering costs against him on the ground that he had been debarred from actively participating in the proceeding and that the main judgment was tainted by bias. The court was required to determine whether the creditor's petition was properly verified, whether the Court could be satisfied that debts were owing, whether the Court should "go behind" the main judgment, and whether any other sufficient cause existed as to why a sequestration order should not be made.

The court held that the creditor's petition was properly verified as required by the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The debtor failed to establish any reason for the Court to go behind any judgment or court orders. The debtor did not demonstrate any other sufficient cause as to why a sequestration order should not be made. The sequestration order met the requirements of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The court found that the grounds of opposition were without merit.

The court made a sequestration order against the estate of Lee Francis Du Bray. The costs of the applicant were to be assessed by a Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia and be paid from the bankrupt estate of Lee Francis Du Bray in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The date of bankruptcy was 13 September 2018, and a consent to act as trustee signed by David Henry Sampson had been filed under s 156A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).