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
The interim application filed on 24 June 2011 is refused.
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).
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)
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.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] FMCA 545
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.