Adicho v Dankeith Homes Pty Ltd

[2013] FCCA 1200

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADICHO v DANKEITH HOMES PTY LTD [2013] FCCA 1200

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Sequestration order – review – no appearance.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.52

Applicant: JOHN ADICHO

Respondent: DANKEITH HOMES PTY LTD

File Number: SYG 837 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Raphael

Hearing date: 14 August 2013

Date of Last Submission: 14 August 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 14 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms M. Fraser

Solicitors for the Respondent: Noel F. Bracks & Company

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed pursuant to Part 13 Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).

2. The Applicant’s costs be taxed if not agreed in accordance with the Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 and paid from the estate of the Respondent in accordance with the Act.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 837 of 2013

JOHN ADICHO

Applicant

And

DANKEITH HOMES PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter a sequestration order was made against the estate of John Adicho on 18 June 2013 by Deputy Registrar Hannigan.  This order was made after the matter had been previously adjourned.  On 9 July 2013 an application for review was made by the debtor.  The matter came before me on 12 August 2013 after having been before a Registrar on 29 July 2013, when orders were made for the filing of evidence et cetera. On 12 August 2013 I was requested to adjourn the matter further. But having considered the file and the ground for the review – which was that the bankruptcy notice was served prior to an appeal that the applicant had in the Supreme Court against the judgment that founded the bankruptcy notice – I determined that the matter should be heard speedily given that I did not consider that this would be a relevant matter to take into account under s.52 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and, more importantly, that the appeal was unsuccessful in any event.

2. When the matter came on before me the solicitors who had formerly appeared on behalf of Mr Adicho informed me that their instructions had been withdrawn, and they sought to file in court a Notice of Ceasing to Act. Mr Adicho himself was not present in court and in those circumstances I propose, at the request of Ms Fraser who appears on behalf of the petitioning creditor, to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to Part 13, Rule 13.03C(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Raphael

Associate: 

Date:  26 August 2013