Djunaedi v Mohor (No 2)

Case [2025] FedCFamC2G 1282

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Djunaedi v Mohor (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1282

File number(s): ADG 75 of 2024
Judgment of: JUDGE BROWN
Date of judgment: 11 August 2025
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – Creditor’s petition – service of bankruptcy notice – parties have history of convoluted proceedings between each other – relevance of earlier discontinued proceedings against second respondent – exercise of court’s discretion to go behind judgment debt – relevance of counterclaim – extension of petition – overarching principle of civil litigation – relevance of fraud of first respondent – exercise of discretion – matters to be considered
Legislation:

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 28A

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 4, 40, 41, 43, 52, 58, 60, 306, 309

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss 5, 190, 254, 256

Bankruptcy Regulations 2021 (Cth) r 102

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Bankruptcy) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 1.04, 2.02, 3.01, 17.02, 17.05

Enforcement of Judgments Act 1991 (SA)

Cases cited:

CLGC Pty Ltd v Zhang [2022] FedCFamC2G 152

Culleton v Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 8

Coulls v Bagot’s Executor & Trustee Co Ltd [1967] HCA 3

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Bayeh (1999) 100 FCR 144

Djunaedi v Collins [2025] FedCFamC2G 135

Djunaedi v Mohor [2025] FedCFamC2G 216

Dowling v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited [1915] 20 CLR 509

Forty Two International Pty Ltd v Barnes [2010] FCA 397

Glew v Harrowell; in the matter of Glew [2003] FCA 373

Guss v Johnstone (2000) 171 ALR 598

Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36

Liberty Funding Pty Ltd v Phoenix Capital Ltd [2005] FCAFC 3

Mbuzi v Favell (No 2) [2012] FCA 311

Ramsay health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton (2017)_ 261 CLR 132

Re Gye & Perkes v McInture [1992] FCA 235

Re Svir; Ex Parte Commissioner of Taxation (1998) 83 FCR 314

Robson as Former Trustee of the Estate f Samsakopoulos v Body Corporate for Sanderling at Kings Beach CTS 2942 [2021] FCAFC 143

Springfield Nominees Pty Ltd v Bridgeland Securities Ltd [1992] FCA 720

Wren v Mahoney (1972) 126 CLR 212

Collins & Anor v Djunaedi & Ors [2016] SACCFC 48

Collins & Anor v Djunaedi & Ors (No 2) [2016] SACCFC 63

Djunaedi v Collins DCCIV-15-91

Djunaedi & Ors v Collins & Anor [2015] SADG 120

Djunaedi & Ors v Collins & Anor (No 2) [2022] SADG 132

Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 294
Date of hearing: 12 May 2025
Place: Adelaide
Counsel for the Applicants: Ms Belperio
Solicitor for the Applicants: Mr Carpenter, Websters Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr Finlayson, 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…

Continue reading Djunaedi v Mohor (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Djunaedi v Mohor (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1282
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1282
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Djunaedi v Mohor (No 2) involves the Petitioning Creditors, who filed a creditor's petition, and the respondents, Collins and Mohor. The dispute revolves around the service of a bankruptcy notice, with the Petitioning Creditors alleging that Collins and Mohor misappropriated funds meant for investment. The case is before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which is tasked with delivering justice effectively and efficiently while considering the importance and complexity of the matters. The court's decision in this case is pivotal in determining the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings and the potential relief available to the Petitioning Creditors.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it should exercise its discretion to go behind a judgment debt and consider the counterclaims and other factors presented by the respondents. The court also needed to assess the relevance of the respondents' conduct, including their failure to comply with court orders and their criminal proceedings, in determining the Petitioning Creditors' entitlement to a bankruptcy order. Additionally, the court had to consider the overarching principles of civil litigation and whether there were any grounds for extending the petition.

The court found that the Petitioning Creditors had a strong case based on the evidence provided, which demonstrated that the respondents had misappropriated funds and breached their obligations. However, the court also considered the respondents' counterclaims and the broader context of the proceedings, including the criminal charges against them. The court exercised its discretion to go behind the judgment debt, taking into account the relevance of the counterclaim and the overarching principles of civil litigation. The court found that the respondents' conduct, including their failure to comply with court orders and the potential fraud involved, was relevant in determining the Petitioning Creditors' entitlement to a bankruptcy order. Ultimately, the court decided in favour of the Petitioning Creditors, granting the bankruptcy order and considering the matters to be addressed in the broader context of the case.

The court ordered that the Petitioning Creditors be granted a bankruptcy order against the respondents, Collins and Mohor. The court also directed that the respondents comply with the orders to file a defence and admit facts in the civil proceedings. The decision reflects the court's consideration of the Petitioning Creditors' claims, the respondents' counterclaims, and the broader context of the case, including the criminal proceedings against the respondents. The outcome ensures that the Petitioning Creditors have the opportunity to pursue their claims effectively, while also considering the respondents' legal and factual defences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Section 4 of the Act which creates the court directs that it should deliver justice effectively and efficiently. In so doing, it is charged to focus on ensuring that disputes are resolved at a cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity such matters. In this particular matter, I fear sight has been lost of these laudable objectives. From my perspective, it is difficult to glean what will be achieved, in practical terms, if and when, the issues enjoined in the case, are ever resolved.BACKGROUND In July of 2015, the Petitioning Creditors detailed above, along with five others, commenced proceedings in the District Court of South Australia against Mr Collins and Ms Mohor alleging that they had paid them the sum of $385,750.00 to be invested in a bank in Papua New Guinea and in real estate in New York. In brief terms, the petitioners alleged that Mr Collins and Ms Mohor had made fraudulent representations, breached warranties made in respect of the various transactions and further breached provisions of the Australian Consumer Law and had, in effect, misappropriated this sum of money. It would appear to be the case that, at an early stage of the proceedings, a freezing order was made, by the court preventing Mr Collins and Ms Mohor from dealing with their assets, pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings. In May of 2015, the Petitioning Creditors took out an application for summary judgment against Mr Collins and Ms Mohor in the District Court, which was listed before Judge Tilmouth. The relevant application came before Judge Tilmouth on 14 August 2015.[4][4] See Djunaedi & Ors v Collins & Anor [2015] SADG 120. In his judgment relating to the deferral of the summary judgment application on the basis that Mr Collins and Ms Mohor were seeking legal advice and had a right to silence in the light of pending criminal proceedings against them, Judge Tilmouth summarised the background to the matter in the following terms:In affidavit material before the court based primarily on banking records of accounts operated by the defendants, the payments of numerous sums advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendants, totalling $386,750, are traced into accounts operated and controlled by them. These funds were not applied to the intended purpose and in some cases are demonstrated to have been applied to the repayment of a mortgage, a loan, the purchase of a Mercedes vehicle, and landscaping. That is to say these funds were applied to the personal benefit of the defendants, often in substantial sums. The defendants originally claimed to have transferred all these funds overseas, which is demonstrably not the case.There is also evidence before the court that the Mercedes was traded in for a newer model on 14 April 2015, with a trade-in value of $47,000, and requiring a loan of $35,996.15. Another Judge of this court made a Freezing Order on 29 January 2015, by which the defendants were bound not to ‘dispose of, deal with, or diminish the value of any of your assets in Australia’. Mr Collins asserts that the contract with respect to the motor vehicle was made 12 months before the first car was bought and the defendants were obliged ‘to follow on with it’ and that the car had in fact gone up in value.[1] Nevertheless this conduct is a prima facie breach of the order.The defendants now face six charges of deception and one count of money laundering, for which they were bailed in the Christies Beach Magistrates Court on 4 July 2015, for hearing on 11 August this year. These charges relate to the very transactions to which these civil proceedings relate. It would appear at this early stage that if the defendants are committed for trial to the District Court, that is not likely to be heard until later this year, or even early 2016.Although now unrepresented in the civil proceedings, the defendants are represented with respect to the criminal charges. They have not complied with orders to file a defence in these civil proceedings. They claim not to have done so on legal advice pending the outcome of the stay application, which was lodged on 15 July 2015. Nor have they complied with a notice to admit facts, for similar reasons.[5][5] See Djunaedi & Ors v Collins & Anor [2015] SADG 120 at [3]-[6].

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.