Arnold, Re M.J. Bankrupt, Ex Parte The Arnold, Re J.P. Summary

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

DIVISION GENERAL 1

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND )
QLD E200 Of 1986
RE: MARGARET JOYCE ARNOLD

EX PARTE: THE BANKRUPT

QLD E201 of 1986

RE: JOHN PETER ARNOLD

EX PARTE: THE BANKRUPT

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER: 19 SEPTEMBER 1988

BRISBANE

WHERE MADE:

THE COURT ORDERS

THAT:

Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.

1. the bankrupt Margaret Joyce Arnold be and she

hereby is discharged from her bankruptcy;

2. the bankrupt John Peter Arnold be and he hereby is
discharged from h l s bankruptcy.

- NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

I

GENERAL DIVISION )

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND )

I .

QLD E200 Of 1986 I .

RE: MARGARET JOYCE ARNOLD , .
I

EX PARTE: THE BANKRUPT

QLD E201 Of 1986 F .

I ,

RE: JOHN PETER ARNOLD

EX PARTE: THE BANKRUPT

PINCUS J. 19 SEPTEMBER 1988
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are two applications for discharge, the applicants l ..

being husband and wife, who became bankrupt in each case on their .

own petitions some two and a half years ago, that is, on 13 14arch
1986. The material before me discloses that the debts due consist

in some $15,000 owing to unsecured creditors and total of about
$27,000, being the balance of moneys due to secured creditors, the

Ipswich and West I4oreton Building Society, Direct Acceptance

Corporation Pty Llmited and Australian Guarantee Corporation '
Limited.

The debt originally due to the building society has

!
i

I , ; L-
>-

L .

The explanation of the bankruptcy is that according to the

I trustee's report, I t r Arnold's employer (if that is the right word)
Stowemarket Pty Ltd became insolvent because a company called
Permanent Pantry Pty Limited, to which Stowemarket had contracted
Mr Arnold's services, failed.

The material discloses that both Mr and Mrs Arnold have

the opportunity of obtaining some remunerative employment if a

discharge is granted. At present they have none, although there

has been some employment since the date of bankruptcy, for a

period of three months. In my opinion, the facts disclose a good

ground for ordering a discharge in each case and it will be so

ordered. , .;

certify that this and the o n e pr ceding
pages ar2 a true copy of the reasons for

judgpent hcreln of His Honour
Associate

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Federal Court of Australia involves two applications for discharge from bankruptcy by Margaret Joyce Arnold and John Peter Arnold, who were declared bankrupt on their own petitions on 13 March 1986. The court had to determine whether the applicants, who were husband and wife, should be discharged from their bankruptcy. The primary issue was whether there was sufficient justification for granting a discharge under the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. The court needed to consider the financial circumstances of the applicants, their efforts to repay their debts, and their prospects for future employment.

The court, in its reasons for judgment, noted that the applicants owed approximately $15,000 to unsecured creditors and about $27,000 to secured creditors. The primary reason for their bankruptcy was the insolvency of Stowemarket Pty Ltd, Mr Arnold's employer, due to the failure of Permanent Pantry Pty Limited. Despite this, the applicants had the potential to secure employment if discharged, and they had already worked for three months since their bankruptcy declaration. The judge found that the circumstances warranted a discharge as the applicants had shown good grounds for such relief.

In light of the evidence presented, the court concluded that a discharge was appropriate. The judge ordered that both Margaret Joyce Arnold and John Peter Arnold be discharged from their respective bankruptcies. The order was made under Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules, effective from 19 September 1988. The decision reflects the court's consideration of the applicants' financial situation, their employment prospects, and the likelihood of their ability to manage their finances responsibly in the future.

Arnold, Re M.J. Bankrupt, Ex Parte The Arnold, Re J.P.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

DIVISION	GENERAL	1
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND )

2.	the bankrupt John Peter Arnold be and he hereby	is
discharged from h l s bankruptcy.

GENERAL DIVISION	)
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT	OF THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND	)

being husband and wife, who became bankrupt in each case on their	.
own petitions some two and a half years ago, that is, on	13 14arch

Corporation	Pty	Llmited	and	Australian	Guarantee	Corporation	'
Limited.