Cirillo v Consolidated Press Property Pty Ltd (formerly known as Citicorp Australia Limited)

The appellant, Cirillo, appeals against the orders made by Mansfield J on 23 March 2007, which concerned a sequestration order sought by the respondents, Consolidated Press Property Pty Ltd, against the appellant's estate under s 43 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The petition for the sequestration order was based on the appellant's failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice served on him in respect of a judgment debt of $500,000 awarded against him in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The judgment debt arose from the appellant's unsuccessful claim to enforce an undertaking as to damages given by the respondents, following an injunction that had been granted against him.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had a counter-claim, set-off, or cross demand against the respondents that was equal to, or greater than, the amount of the judgment debt, and whether there were sufficient grounds to adjourn the hearing of the petition for sequestration. The appellant had previously applied to set aside the bankruptcy notice, arguing that he had a counter-claim against the respondents, but this application was dismissed by Finn J on 16 February 2007. The appellant further sought an adjournment of the hearing of the petition, arguing that he needed more time to pursue proceedings in the Supreme Court of South Australia in relation to the judgment debt or that the existence of pre-action discovery proceedings provided a reason to dismiss the petition.

The court dismissed the appeal and held that there were no grounds to justify an adjournment of the hearing of the petition. The court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims of a counter-claim, set-off, or cross demand, and that the additional material filed by the respondents did not change the substantive position. The court also noted that the appellant's application for an adjournment was made on short notice and without substantial supporting affidavit material. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, to be taxed in default of agreement.