Battenberg v Restom

In the case of Battenberg v Restom, the appellant, Battenberg, sought to appeal a sequestration order made against him by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, arguing that he was not ordinarily resident in Australia at the time of the act of bankruptcy, as required by section 43(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The respondent, Restom, argued that the appellant was indeed ordinarily resident in Australia at the relevant time and sought to uphold the sequestration order. The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant could be ordinarily resident in more than one place and what the meaning of "ordinarily resident" entailed in the context of the Bankruptcy Act.

The court considered the definition of "ordinarily resident" as established in previous cases, where it was held that a person is ordinarily resident in a place if they reside there by choice, for the purposes of living there, and not for a temporary or transitory purpose. The court found that the appellant had maintained a residence in Australia and had not demonstrated a clear intention to permanently reside elsewhere. Additionally, the court determined that a person could not be ordinarily resident in more than one place at the same time. The court concluded that the appellant was indeed ordinarily resident in Australia at the relevant time, and therefore the appeal was dismissed.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions. The court found that the appellant had not satisfied the burden of proving that he was not ordinarily resident in Australia at the time of the act of bankruptcy. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent creditors’ costs, including reserved costs, were to be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).