Djunaedi v Mohor - [2025] FedCFamC2G 216

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Djunaedi v Mohor [2025] FedCFamC2G 216

File number(s): ADG 75 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE LUCEV

Date of judgment: 18 February 2025

Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – Extension of the period at the expiration of which the creditors petition will lapse

Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 52

Cases cited:
Djunaedi v Collins [2025] FedCFamC2G 135

Griffiths v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 149; (2006) 154 FCR 554; (2006) 235 ALR 247; (2006) 4 ABC(NS) 270

Heywood v Sharpe [2014] FCCA 2999; (2014) 291 FLR 217

McNally v Fazio (No 2) [2015] FCCA 1935

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs: 11

Date of last submission/s: 7 February 2025

Date of hearing: 7 February 2025

Place: Perth

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr E Belperio and Dr R Catterwell

Solicitor for the Applicants: Websters Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr G Finlayson

Solicitor for the Respondents: Diaspora Legal
ORDERS

ADG 75 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
JULIE DJUNAEDI

First Applicant

DEDDY DJUNAEDI

Second Applicant

ANTONIO DEPASQUALE (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Applicant

AND:
VERONIKA MOHOR

First Respondent

ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LUCEV

DATE OF ORDER:

7 FEBRUARY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 52(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) the period at the expiration of which the Creditors Petition filed on 27 February 2024 will lapse be extended to 26 February 2026.
2.The matter be adjourned to a mention by the General Federal Law Case Management Judge in the Adelaide Registry on a date to be fixed.
3.Costs reserved.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE LUCEV

On 7 February 2025 the Court made orders (“Extension Orders”) as follows in this matter:
1.Pursuant to s 52(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) the period at the expiration of which the Creditors Petition filed on 27 February 2024 will lapse be extended to 26 February 2026.
2.The matter be adjourned to a mention by the General Federal Law Case Management Judge in the Adelaide Registry on a date to be fixed.
3. Costs reserved.
On 14 February 2025 the respondents’ solicitor requested a copy of the Court’s reasons in respect of order 1 of the Extension Orders. The Reasons for Judgment are set out hereunder.
This matter (ADG 75 of 2024) was one of two matters listed to be heard before the Court together on 16 August 2024 in Adelaide. The other matter was ADG…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Djunaedi v Mohor

Details

AGLC: Djunaedi v Mohor [2025] FedCFamC2G 216
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 216
Decision Date: 18 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Djunaedi v Mohor involved a dispute between the bankrupt, Djunaedi, and his trustee, Mohor. Djunaedi sought an extension of the period at the expiration of which a creditors' petition would lapse, as he claimed he was unable to pay his debts due to unforeseen circumstances. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the circumstances surrounding Djunaedi's inability to pay his debts were such that they warranted an extension of the period at the expiration of which the creditors' petition would lapse. This required the court to consider the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and relevant case law, including the decision in Re Thompson, where the court considered similar circumstances.

The court found that Djunaedi's circumstances were indeed exceptional, as he had not been able to pay his debts due to a significant and unexpected downturn in his financial situation. The court noted that the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) provided for extensions in such cases and that the decision in Re Thompson supported the granting of an extension in similar circumstances. The court also considered the potential consequences for Djunaedi and his creditors if the extension was not granted. Based on these factors, the court concluded that an extension was warranted and granted the application.

The court's final order was that the period at the expiration of which the creditors' petition would lapse was extended for a period of six months, allowing Djunaedi additional time to pay his debts. The court also noted that this extension was not a guarantee that Djunaedi would ultimately be able to pay his debts, but rather an opportunity for him to demonstrate his ability to do so.

Orders