CostaExchange Limited v Shephard (No.2)

Link copied
Case Copied 11 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COSTAEXCHANGE LIMITED & ORS v SHEPHARD (No.2) [2011] FMCA 545
BANKRUPTCY – Creditor’s petition – application to set aside sequestration order – operation of sequestration order stayed for 21 days on condition of payment by debtor to trustee – mistake affecting ability of debtor to comply – no grounds for setting aside sequestration order – no evidence of ‘fraud’ – sequestration order did reflect intentions of court – delay in applying for remedy – application refused.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.37(2), 52(3), 109(1)(a), 153A, 153B
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.16.05, 16.05(1), 16.05(2), 16.05(2)(b), 16.05(2)(e)
Austral Brick Co Pty Ltd v Daskalovsk [1998] FCA 782
CostaExchange Limited & Ors v Shephard [2010] FMCA 804
Doulman v ACT Electronic Solutions Pty Limited & Anor [2011] FMCA 232
First Applicant: COSTAEXCHANGE LIMITED
ACN 002 687 961
(FORMERLY CHIQUITA BRANDS SOUTH PACIFIC LIMITED)
Second Applicant: ANTHONY GEOFFREY HARTNELL
Third Applicant: GARY WILLIAM WRIGHT
Fourth Applicant: DAVID ANTHONY BARDON
Fifth Applicant: PETER WOODS
Sixth Applicant: RIDLEY BELL
Seventh Applicant: MICHAEL TAMANI
Eighth Applicant: SCOTT ROLAND WOLGAMOT
Ninth Applicant: PETER JOHN MCPHERSON
Respondent: DEREK GEORGE SHEPHARD
File Number: SYG 1333 of 2010
Judgment of: Smith FM
Hearing date: 12 July 2011
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 12 July 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J S Tobin
Solicitors for the Applicant: Watson Mangioni Lawyers Pty Limited
Counsel for the Respondent: Respondent in person

ORDERS

  1. The interim application filed on 24 June 2011 is refused. 

  2. The creditors’ costs in relation to that application be taxed and paid from the estate in the bankruptcy of Mr Shephard in the priority fixed by s.109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

  3. The creditors must give copies of this order to the Trustee and to the Official Receiver in Sydney within 2 working days.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1333 of 2010

COSTAEXCHANGE LIMITED ACN 002 687 961
(FORMERLY CHIQUITA BRANDS SOUTH PACIFIC LIMITED)

First Applicant

ANTHONY GEOFFREY HARTNELL

Second Applicant

GARY WILLIAM WRIGHT

Third Applicant

DAVID ANTHONY BARDON

Fourth Applicant

PETER WOODS

Fifth Applicant

RIDLEY BELL

Sixth Applicant

MICHAEL TAMANI

Seventh Applicant

SCOTT ROLAND WOLGAMOT

Eighth Applicant

PETER JOHN MCPHERSON

Ninth Applicant

And

DEREK GEORGE SHEPHARD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

  1. On 12 October 2010 I made a sequestration order against the estate of Mr Shephard on the petition of a number of people of whom the first named was CostaExchange Limited.  Mr Shephard now, by interim application filed on 24 June 2011 in the same proceedings, seeks orders to set aside all the orders I made on 12 October 2010.  In my opinion, his application is lacking in substance in relation to its grounds.  Moreover, I would not be persuaded to exercise the discretion which Mr Shephard invokes. 

  2. The orders I made on 12 October 2010 were: 

    1.A sequestration order be made against the estate of Derek George Shephard. 

    2.All proceedings under the sequestration order are stayed under s.52(3) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CostaExchange Limited v Shephard (No.2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] FMCA 545
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

CostaExchange Limited was a creditor of the bankrupt, Mr Shephard. The dispute involved an interim application by the creditor, seeking to have the court make an order that would allow them to pursue Mr Shephard's personal assets, notwithstanding that he was already subject to a bankruptcy order. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman.

The legal issues before the court included the extent of the protection afforded to a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), and whether the court should grant the creditor’s application to make an order that would allow them to pursue the bankrupt’s personal assets. The court had to consider the statutory provisions regarding the rights and protections of a bankrupt, as well as any relevant case law on the matter.

The court found that the statutory provisions provided sufficient protection to the bankrupt, and that the creditor’s application was not warranted. The court concluded that the creditor was seeking to circumvent the protections afforded to the bankrupt, and that such an approach was not in line with the purpose of the Bankruptcy Act. As such, the court refused the creditor’s application and ordered that the creditor pay the costs of the application from the bankrupt’s estate. The court also ordered that the creditor provide copies of the order to the Trustee and the Official Receiver within two working days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The interim application filed on 24 June 2011 is refused.

2.

The creditors’ costs in relation to that application be taxed and paid from the estate in the bankruptcy of Mr Shephard in the priority fixed by s.109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

3.

The creditors must give copies of this order to the Trustee and to the Official Receiver in Sydney within 2 working days.

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.