Bullen v Mangano

In the case of Bullen v Mangano, the court was asked to consider whether a sequestration order should be made against the estate of the respondent, Silvana Mangano, following a creditor’s petition. The petitioner, Bullen, sought the order on the basis that Mangano had failed to comply with a bankruptcy notice and thus had committed an act of bankruptcy. Mangano opposed the application on the basis of her solvency. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mangano could discharge the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that she was able to pay her debts within the meaning of s 52(2)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The court was also required to determine whether Mangano had provided sufficient evidence to discharge this onus.

The court found that Mangano had failed to provide adequate evidence to discharge the onus of proving that she was able to pay her debts. The evidence presented by Mangano was deemed insufficient to meet the required standard. The court noted that Mangano, as the respondent, had the onus of proving her solvency, an onus which must be discharged on the balance of probabilities. The court held that Mangano’s evidence did not meet this standard, and therefore, the court was satisfied that the conditions for making a sequestration order under s 43(1) and s 52(1) of the Act had been met. Consequently, the court made the sequestration order against Mangano’s estate.

The court made the following orders: the estate of Silvana Mangano be sequestrated under the Bankruptcy Act; the applicant creditor’s costs of the petition be paid from the estate of the respondent debtor; and a copy of this order be provided by the applicant creditor to the Official Receiver in Sydney within two days. The court noted that the date of the act of bankruptcy was 11 May 2024 and that a consent to act as trustee signed by Mr Gavin King had been filed under s 156A of the Bankruptcy Act.