Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Burchill

[2017] FCCA 3417

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v BURCHILL [2017] FCCA 3417

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – creditor’s petition – no appearance by respondent debtor – applicant creditor establishes entitlement to a sequestration order and costs – sequestration order made.

Legislation:
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Applicant: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent: EDWARD ALLAN BURCHILL

File Number: SYG 803 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Dowdy

Hearing date: 29 September 2017

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 29 September 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C. Bavin

Solicitors for the Applicant: Hunt & Hunt

No appearance by or for the Respondent debtor.

THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of Mr Edward Allan Burchill. 

2. Order that the bankrupt estate of Mr Edward Allan Burchill pay to the Applicant petitioning creditor costs in the amount of $6690.62.

3. Order that a copy of this sequestration order be given to the Official Receiver in Sydney within two days.

4. The Court notes that the date of the act of bankruptcy is 20 February 2017.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 803 of 2017

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Applicant

And

EDWARD ALLAN BURCHILL

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

1. Today I am hearing a Creditor’s Petition which seeks a sequestration order against the estate of the debtor Edward Allan Burchill.  The matter was set down for final hearing today on Friday, 14 July 2017 when Mr Burchill was in Court.  So Mr Burchill knows quite well that the hearing of the creditor’s petition is today.  He has been called three times outside the Court, but he has not appeared. 

2. He is, therefore, not in attendance to argue and propound his Notice of Opposition, which was filed in this Court on 12 April 2017 supported by an affidavit of the same date.  As he is not present to propound and argue his Notice of Opposition it must necessarily fail. 

3. In relation to the Creditor’s Petition, Mr Bavin appears for the Applicant petitioning creditor, and has read and relied on a body of the usual affidavit evidence which in my view justifies and requires the making of a sequestration order against the Respondent debtor.

4. Accordingly, the first order that I will make is a sequestration order against the estate of the Respondent debtor.

5. I further note that the Statement of Costs and Disbursements incurred as at 28 September 2017 in the amount of $6,690.62 is an appropriate quantum of costs in relation to this proceeding incurred by the Applicant petitioning creditor and I will order that the estate of the Respondent debtor pay such costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dowdy

Date: 19 June 2018