FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| COOK v TAGAMILITSKY | [2001] FMCA 117 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Application for order to vacate premises – where failure to conform precisely to order for substituted service because not sent by registered post until two days after date ordered – where respondent did receive documents by personal service – procedural defect excused – application granted. |
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.30, 58, 77G, 78, 129, 306(1)
Federal Court Rules, O 37, r 7
| Applicant: | PAUL JOHN COOK |
| Respondent: | VERA TAGAMILITSKY |
| File No: | SZ505 of 2001 |
| Delivered on: | 13 November 2001 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 13 November 2001 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | A. Fernon |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Kemp Strang Solicitors |
ORDERS
The respondent vacate the property, described as Lot 1 in Strata Plan 8878 at Lidcombe and having a street address of Unit 1, 17-19 Mary Street, Lidcombe, New South Wales, within 14 days of this order.
In the event that the respondent fails to give vacant possession of the property in accordance with order 1, a writ of possession may issue forthwith.
Service of this order be effected by placing the same in a sealed envelope and putting it under the door of Unit 1 on the date that this order is taken out and by placing a copy of this order on the door utilising an adhesive to prevent the order from being torn off the door.
The applicant's costs of the proceedings be paid in priority out of the property of the bankrupt estate of the respondent.
Liberty to apply on two days notice.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SZ 71 of 2001
| PAUL JOHN COOK |
Applicant
And
| VERA TAGAMILITSKY |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter by way of an application dated 28 August 2001, Paul John Cook, the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Vera Tagamilitsky, sought orders from the court pursuant to sections 30, 58, 77(G) and 78 of the Bankruptcy Act and Order 37 rule 7 of the Federal Court Rules, requiring the bankrupt respondent to vacate her property, Unit 1, 17-19 Mary Street, Lidcombe in the state of New South Wales which the trustee proposed thereafter to sell in accordance with his powers under section 129 of the Bankruptcy Act to realise the assets of the debtor.
That application was required to be served personally on the bankrupt and in his affidavit of 23 October 2001, Salvatore Roppolo, deposes to placing the order, the application and the affidavit in support under the front door of the premises on 22 October 2001. This form of service was permitted pursuant to an order of Registrar Quinn of this court made following an application for substituted service on 16 October 2001. Prior to that date, Darryl Arnolda, who swore an affidavit date 5 October 2001, had made several attempts to serve the application personally. In particular, at paragraph 15 of his affidavit, he deposes to the fact that on 16 September 2001, he attended the…
Continue reading Cook v Tagamilitsky
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cook v Tagamilitsky [2001] FMCA 117
- Case
- [2001] FMCA 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had the right to enforce the possession order against the respondent and whether the respondent had a valid defence to the order. The court needed to determine the validity of the order, the rights of the parties in the context of the respondent's bankruptcy, and the appropriate means of enforcing the possession order.
The court found that the applicant had the right to enforce the possession order as it was valid and subsisting. The court considered that the respondent had no valid defence to the order and that the enforcement of the order was necessary to give effect to the rights of the parties. The court emphasised that the applicant had a legitimate interest in securing possession of the property and that the respondent's bankruptcy did not affect the validity of the order. The court directed that the respondent vacate the property within 14 days, and if the respondent failed to do so, a writ of possession could issue forthwith. The court also ordered that the applicant's costs of the proceedings be paid in priority out of the property of the bankrupt estate of the respondent.
In conclusion, the court ordered the respondent to vacate the property within 14 days and to pay the applicant's costs in priority out of the respondent's bankrupt estate. The court also provided for the service of the order and granted liberty to apply on two days notice.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The respondent vacate the property, described as Lot 1 in Strata Plan 8878 at Lidcombe and having a street address of Unit 1, 17-19 Mary Street, Lidcombe, New South Wales, within 14 days of this order.
2.
In the event that the respondent fails to give vacant possession of the property in accordance with order 1, a writ of possession may issue forthwith.
3.
Service of this order be effected by placing the same in a sealed envelope and putting it under the door of Unit 1 on the date that this order is taken out and by placing a copy of this order on the door utilising an adhesive to prevent the order from being torn off the door.
4.
The applicant's costs of the proceedings be paid in priority out of the property of the bankrupt estate of the respondent.
5.
Liberty to apply on two days notice.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.