BMW Australia Finance Limited v Petrie
[2009] FMCA 1312
•19 November 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BMW AUSTRALIA FINANCE LIMITED v PETRIE | [2009] FMCA 1312 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Sequestration order. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966, s.52 |
| Applicant: | BMW AUSTRALIA FINANCE LIMITED |
| Respondent: | BRENT ANTHONY PETRIE |
| File Number: | BRG 718 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Wilson FM |
| Hearing date: | 19 November 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 19 November 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Brisbane |
| Delivered on: | 19 November 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | N/A |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Bain Gasteen |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | N/A |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | N/A |
ORDERS
A Sequestration Order be made against the estate of BRENT ANTHONY PETRIE.
The Applicant Creditor’s costs (including reserved costs, if any) be taxed and paid from the estate of the Respondent Debtor in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966, fixed in the sum of $3,838.77.
The Court notes that the date of the act of bankruptcy is 21 September 2009.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
BRG 718 of 2009
| BMW AUSTRALIA FINANCE LIMITED |
Applicant
And
| BRENT ANTHONY PETRIE |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter the applicant has presented a creditor’s petition, seeking a sequestration order against the estate of the respondent. The matter was referred to this court by order of the Registrar, made on 5 November 2009. The respondent has filed no material in opposition to the applicant’s documents. The applicant’s documents are in order, on their face. I am satisfied that the debt is still owing by the respondent to the applicant and that no other sufficient cause has been shown against the making of a sequestration order. The applicant obtained a default judgment that has not been satisfied.
The applicant has, quite properly, put before the court correspondence that has passed between the applicant and its solicitors and the respondent in which the respondent makes a number of assertions, including an assertion that he was not properly served with the creditor’s petition and associated documents. There has been filed an affidavit of Mr Turner, filed on 5 November 2009, deposing to personal service on the respondent of the documents referred to in paragraph 1 of that affidavit. There is, as I have said, no sworn evidence from the respondent putting in issue those matters.
The respondent sent, by email transmission, at 6.18 pm last evening, a letter to the court, making some submissions in relation to this matter. A copy of that email has been provided to the solicitor for the applicant. Apart from disputing the issue of service, the other matters raised by the respondent deal with the circumstances in which he came to owe the money to the applicant, and his attempts to discharge that debt. There is no substantive submission made as to why a sequestration order should not be made.
In the circumstances, I am satisfied of the matters in s.52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and make a sequestration order against the estate of the respondent.
I note that two attempts were made to contact the respondent, by telephone, this morning when the matter was first called and also at 10.00 am, a time at which the respondent said that he would be available after work.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Wilson FM
Associate: Lynnette Chin
Date: 25 January 2010
0
0
1