Bond v Rees Group - [2014] FCA 430

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bond v Rees Group [2014] FCA 430

Citation: Bond v Rees Group [2014] FCA 430

Parties: IAN RICHARD BOND v REES GROUP, REES CORPORATE ADVISORY PTY LTD (ACN 105 088 999) and REES SECURITIES PTY LTD (ACN 063 950 649)

File number: VID 139 of 2014

Judge: TRACEY J

Date of judgment: 1 May 2014

Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – application for annulment of bankruptcy – application refused

Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 153B

Cases cited: Bulic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2007] FCA 307 - considered

Date of hearing: 1 May 2014

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 20

Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr S L Freire

Solicitor for the Respondents: Consult Solicitors

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 139 of 2014

BETWEEN:
IAN RICHARD BOND
Applicant

AND:
REES GROUP
First Respondent

REES CORPORATE ADVISORY PTY LTD (ACN 105 088 999)
Second Respondent

REES SECURITIES PTY LTD (ACN 063 950 649)
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 MAY 2014

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application that his bankruptcy be annulled be refused.
2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of the application.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 139 of 2014

BETWEEN:
IAN RICHARD BOND
Applicant

AND:
REES GROUP
First Respondent

REES CORPORATE ADVISORY PTY LTD (ACN 105 088 999)
Second Respondent

REES SECURITIES PTY LTD (ACN 063 950 649)
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

1 MAY 2014

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant (Mr Ian Bond) has applied to the Court for an annulment of his bankruptcy. The application is made under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”).
Mr Bond became bankrupt in the following circumstances. On 18 May 2011 the respondents obtained judgment against him and a company of which he was a director – Burke Bond Financial Pty Ltd – in the County Court of Victoria. The litigation arose from a commercial dispute between the parties. The judgment was for $275,000. On 23 May 2011 a bankruptcy notice was issued at the request of the respondents claiming the amount due under the judgment. The bankruptcy notice was served on Mr Bond on 8 June 2011.
On 16 June 2011 Mr Bond filed an application in the former Federal Magistrates’ Court seeking orders setting aside the bankruptcy notice. That application was refused on 8 August 2011. Mr Bond failed to comply with the bankruptcy notice.
On 8 September 2011 a creditor’s petition was filed.
On 23 September 2011 the Victorian Court of Appeal granted Mr Bond a stay of the County Court judgment pending the hearing and determination of an appeal which he had lodged. As a result the hearing of the creditor’s petition in the Federal Magistrates’ Court was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bond v Rees Group

Details

AGLC: Bond v Rees Group [2014] FCA 430
Case: [2014] FCA 430
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian Richard Bond applied to the Federal Court for the annulment of his bankruptcy. The respondents, Rees Group, Rees Corporate Advisory Pty Ltd, and Rees Securities Pty Ltd, opposed the application. Bond's bankruptcy arose from a County Court judgment for $275,000, which he failed to satisfy. The key legal issue was whether the sequestration order should have been annulled under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The court considered whether Bond carried the heavy burden of proving that the sequestration order ought not to have been made. Bond asserted that he had been the whistleblower exposing fraudulent activities within the Rees Group, but this did not negate his indebtedness to the respondents. The court found that Bond's insolvency was evident, and his new evidence about the Rees Group's activities did not alter the fact that he owed the judgment debt. The application for annulment was denied, and Bond was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders