Doust v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

Case

[2012] FMCA 824


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DOUST v DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION [2012] FMCA 824
BANKRUPTCY – Review of sequestration order.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.52
Applicant: CRAIG STANLEY DOUST
Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
File Number: PEG 111 of 2012
Judgment of: Lindsay FM
Hearing date: 5 September 2012
Date of Last Submission: 5 September 2012
Delivered at: Perth
Delivered on: 5 September 2012

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: No appearance
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Tate
Solicitors for the Respondent: ATO Legal Services

ORDERS

  1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of CRAIG STANLEY DOUST, (“the Applicant”).

  2. The Respondent creditor’s costs be fixed in the sum of $1,426.00 and paid out of the estate of the Applicant in accordance with s.51 of Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

  3. The Application filed 21 May 2012 be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 111 of 2012

CRAIG STANLEY DOUST

Applicant

And

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This application purported to be a review of a decision of the Registrar who exercises the delegated powers of this Court in bankruptcy matters, and who made a sequestration order on the creditor’s petition against the applicant.  The applicant brought his review within time.  He filed an affidavit in support of the application for review, but he has played little, if any, role in the proceedings subsequently.  He has been called in the precincts of the Court today and he has not answered the call.

  2. There is nothing in the affidavit material that he has filed and nothing else that has been brought to my attention which I consider would have provided any basis for me to dismiss the petition under s.52(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (“the Act”). There is no proof that he was able to pay his debts nor any other sufficient cause why a sequestration order ought not be made, and I am satisfied on account of the affidavits that have been filed and to which Ms Tate has drawn my attention as proof of the matters required by s.52(1) of the Act.

  3. Accordingly, I am prepared to make a sequestration order against the estate of the applicant in these proceedings, the respondent in the proceedings before the Registrar, and an order for the payment of costs by the applicant in the amount sought by the respondent.

  4. I so order. 

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Lindsay FM

Date:  10 September 2012

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0