De Ferro, Re H. Hosie, Ex Parte B.

I11 THE FEtERAL COTJRT OF AUSTRF.LIS

GENERAL DIVISION

EANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF NEW SOUTH

WALES

LID. F138 of 1386

.VIE THE

AUSTRP.LIAi'1

CP.PITXL

TERRITOR'I!

HELEN DE FEFRO

ELY PILF.TE:

BRUCE

HOSIE Sr EOSALIE H O S E

Jud.ge maklny crckr:

Beaumont, J .

F a t e

o r d e r

made:

4 June 1?86

IbJhers made :

Jydneq-

s a t i s f i e d .

for

the

purposes

~.52llA)(h'!ll) af

the

Act ,

that

t h e

p e t l t l o n l n g

c r e d i t o r s

ha7= been

unab le

t o

e b t u n from

r e q i s t e r e d

t r u s t e e s

consent

under ~.156A(l!.

T -.

make a

s e q u e s t r a t i s r ?

o r d e r

a q a i n s t

the

? s t a t e of

t h e

d e b t o r .

o rde r

that

c o s t s

! m c i u d l n u

r e s e r v e d

z o s t s ! be	taxed	and	pard	a c c o r d l n q	t a	t h e
-\c t .

i suspend

the

op;.rst lon

of orde r /ia

up c,:

2nd inClud.InT 35 June 1?86.

Note:

Set

lement

and

entry

o r d e r s

i s dea l t w i t h

i n

Bankruptcy

Rule

1 2 4 .

iebtrlr

ii.3

n u t seek.

i n t h i s Cour t .

adduc?

an:J

eal2enc.e l n

zupport

t h e

z l l e g a t r o n s

made

i n the s t a t emen t

c l a m .

The

d e b t o r

xas

c o n t e n t mere117

t o

t e n d e r

the

s t a t emen t

claim 3rd

made

a t t s m p t

t.3

e s t a b l i s h

t h a t

h e r

c l a m s llaci

an:;

n l e r l t

a r

prospe- t

i u c c e s s .

these c i rcumstances .

m n o t

p e r j u a c d that.

the

i e b t o r

has made

out

a c a s e

f o r

the zxercise

nf the

C:wt

Z l s c r e t i o n i n

her

f svour .

I .

SYDYEY

R L G I S T R Y

. .

EQUITY	3 I V I S I O ' I
i L S E N A	3E ? E R R 0

P l a l n t l f f

B R U C E

H O S I E

and

P O S A L I E

! l O S T E

D e f e n d a n t s

B l L L I N G T O N 5

r L

5 0 1 1 C L t O r S ,

S u l t e 4 ,

2 n d

F l o o r ,

The	h a l l a c e w a y ,
q e 1 p	s t r e e t .

C P A T S W C O D ,

2 0 6 7

3 X

4 7 9

S y d n e y

T e l

411.4511

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re H. Hosie, Ex Parte B. De Ferro, the Federal Court of Australia, specifically the General Division, adjudicated on a matter involving the bankruptcy of a debtor. The petitioner, Bruce Hosie, sought to obtain a sequestration order against the debtor, Helen De Ferro, based on her inability to pay debts. The registered trustees had not consented to the making of such an order, as required by the Act. The central issue for the court was whether the petitioner had established a case for the exercise of the court's discretion in favour of granting a sequestration order.

The court found that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations made in the statement of claim. The debtor merely tendered the statement of claim and made no attempt to establish that her claims had any merit or prospect of success. Given these circumstances, the court was not persuaded that the debtor had made out a case for the court's discretion to be exercised in her favour. The court thus ruled that the petitioner had not satisfied the necessary requirements under the Act for a sequestration order to be granted.

In light of the above findings, the court ordered that a sequestration order be made against the estate of the debtor. Additionally, the court mandated that the costs, including reserved costs, be taxed and paid according to the provisions of the Act. The operation of the order was suspended until 2nd June 1986 to allow for any potential settlement and entry of orders as per Bankruptcy Rule 124. The settlement and entry of orders were to be handled in accordance with the relevant legal procedures.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established