Comino v Juratowitch (in His Capacity as trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Comino)

The proceeding before Judge Hartnett concerned a dispute between Mr. Comino and Mr. Juratowitch, who acted as the trustee of Mr. Comino's bankrupt estate. Mr. Comino sought to have a debt owed to him by his former wife, Ms. Comino, declared as not provable in bankruptcy. The core of the dispute revolved around whether this debt, arising from a property settlement agreement, was a provable debt within the meaning of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the debt owed by Ms. Comino to Mr. Comino, stemming from a property settlement agreement, constituted a "provable debt" in Mr. Comino's bankruptcy. This required the Court to consider the nature of the debt and its relationship to the provisions of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth) concerning debts that are capable of being proven in a bankruptcy.

Judge Hartnett determined that the debt was indeed provable in bankruptcy. The Court reasoned that the debt arose from a contractual obligation entered into by the parties, specifically a property settlement agreement. Such contractual debts, even if arising from family law proceedings, are generally provable in bankruptcy unless specifically excluded by the *Bankruptcy Act*. The Court found no such exclusion applicable in this instance, concluding that the debt was a liquidated sum certain and therefore capable of proof. The Court dismissed Mr. Comino's application.