Cavallaro v Dahlsens Building Centres Pty Ltd

[2014] FCCA 2194

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAVALLARO v DAHLSENS BUILDING CENTRES PTY LTD [2014] FCCA 2194

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Application for review of a sequestration order – petitioning creditor and trustee paid out in full – other creditors served but did not attend hearing – sequestration order set aside.

Applicant: MICHELE CAVALLARO

Respondent: DAHLSENS BUILDING CENTRES PTY LTD (ACN 005 032 333)

File number: MLG 1192 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Riley

Hearing date: 3 September 2014

Date of last submission: 3 September 2014

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 3 September 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Joshua Kohn

Solicitors for the Applicant: Dawes & Vary

Solicitor Advocate for the Respondent: Natalie Jaworowski

Solicitors for the Respondent: MCC Legal

ORDERS

1. Pursuant to s.104(3) of the Federal Circuit Court Act 1999, the sequestration order made by a registrar on 31 July 2014 be set aside.

2. There be no order as to costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1192 of 2014

MICHELE CAVALLARO

Applicant

And

DAHLSENS BUILDING CENTRES PTY LTD (ACN 005 032 333)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for review of a sequestration order that was made against the estate of Michele Cavallaro by a registrar on 31 July 2014. 

2. The petitioning creditor attended court today and advised the court that the petitioning creditor’s debt had been paid out in full and it does not wish to pursue the matter.  There is also evidence before the court that the trustee’s costs of the bankruptcy have been paid out in full.

3. In addition, there is evidence before the court indicating that all of the other creditors of the bankrupt have been notified in good time of the proceeding today.  No other creditor has attended court to be substituted as the petitioning creditor.

4. In the circumstances, there is no one before the court today to press for the bankruptcy to continue.  As this is a hearing de novo, a creditor needs to establish the relevant matters.  There is no creditor present to do so. In the circumstances, it seems that the only viable order is that the sequestration order be set aside.

5. As there is no one seeking costs, there will also be an order that there be no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Riley

Associate: 

Date:  23 September 2014