Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HUTCHINGS (No.2)

[2017] FCCA 1301

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v HUTCHINGS (No.2) [2017] FCCA 1301

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Application for stay of proceedings under the sequestration order – stay opposed by the applicant – application for a stay under s.52(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) is refused.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966, s.52(3).

Applicant: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Respondent: GUY HUTCHINGS

File Number: SYG 970 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 31 May 2017

Date of Last Submission: 31 May 2017

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 31 May 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M T Brady QC

Solicitors for the Applicant: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms M Hall

Solicitors for the Respondent: Kennedys (Australasia) Pty Ltd

ORDERS

1. The application for a stay under s.52(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 is refused.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 970 of 2017

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Applicant

And

GUY HUTCHINGS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Court has just made a sequestration order against the estate of the respondent. Ms Hall of counsel for the respondent has moved for a stay under s.52(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”). Such a stay is not a stay of the sequestration order. It is a stay of proceedings under the sequestration order. Ms Hall of Counsel has asked for a stay for seven days for the purpose of the respondent considering the respondent’s position.

2. The existence of these proceedings is one in respect of which the respondent has been on notice since the time of service of the bankruptcy notice. I am not satisfied that undertaking to provide a report as to financial affairs warrants the grant of a stay. The stay is opposed by the applicant. The Court’s decision is not the subject of any identified error and there are important steps required by the legislation once a sequestration order is made. On the evidence before the Court, the respondent has been insolvent since September 2015. Further on the evidence before the Court, as of 26 May 2017, a very substantial compensation costs in the form of orders have been made against the respondent.

3. In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that a stay is warranted in the interests of the administration of justice. The application for a stay under s.52(3) of the Act is refused.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 16 June 2017