Alhalek v Quintiliani trading as Kells Lawyers

Mr Alhalek, acting pro se, seeks an order setting aside the bankruptcy notice issued to him by Quintiliani trading as Kells Lawyers (Kells). Alternatively, Mr Alhalek seeks an extension of time to comply with the bankruptcy notice. The bankruptcy notice was issued in respect of an outstanding debt in the amount of $27,587.55, being the net amount owing for legal costs and disbursements. The debt arose out of work carried out by Kells on behalf of Mr Alhalek between 2 and 28 August 2018. The dispute between the parties concerns whether the bankruptcy notice should be set aside and, if not, whether the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice should be extended.

The court had to determine whether the bankruptcy notice constituted an abuse of process, whether there was evidence that the judgment underlying the bankruptcy notice would be set aside, and whether the applicant had a counter-claim, set off or cross demand. The court considered whether the Bankruptcy Notice was issued in bad faith or as a means of pressuring the applicant to pay the debt. The court also assessed the applicant’s financial position and whether there was any evidence that the judgment underlying the bankruptcy notice would be set aside. Finally, the court considered whether the applicant had any counter-claim, set off or cross demand that could be set against the debt.

The court found that there was no evidence that the judgment underlying the bankruptcy notice would be set aside. The court also found that the Bankruptcy Notice was not an abuse of process, as Kells had attempted to garnishee the applicant’s bank accounts and had not employed any other meaningful form of execution. The court further found that the applicant did not have any counter-claim, set off or cross demand that could be set against the debt. The court held that the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was not made out. However, the court extended the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice to 14 September 2020 and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs.

In summary, the court dismissed the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice but extended the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs.