Equititrust Limited v Bosiljevac

The case of Equititrust Limited v Bosiljevac involved the applicant, Equititrust Limited, seeking to enforce a bankruptcy notice against the respondent, Mr Bosiljevac. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the primary concern was the manner in which the bankruptcy notice should be served upon the respondent. The applicant sought various modes of service, including email, postal mail, airmail, and facsimile, due to the respondent's international residence and the potential difficulty in effecting personal service.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate methods for serving the bankruptcy notice on Mr Bosiljevac, who resided in the United Arab Emirates and had multiple addresses in Australia. The applicant argued that traditional methods of service, such as personal delivery or leaving the notice at the respondent's last known address, were impractical given the respondent's international presence and transient nature. The court needed to assess whether alternative methods of service, including electronic means, were permissible under the relevant legislative framework.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Bankruptcy Act 1966 provided sufficient flexibility to allow for various modes of service. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the service methods were reliable and capable of providing proof of delivery. It held that serving the bankruptcy notice via email, postal mail, airmail, and facsimile were all appropriate means, provided they were executed correctly. The court also deemed it necessary to fix the time for compliance with the notice, setting a deadline of 28 days following the completion of the last act of service.

The orders issued by the court mandated specific methods for serving the bankruptcy notice on Mr Bosiljevac, including emailing a scanned copy to his known email address, sending postal copies to his Australian addresses, and transmitting a facsimile to a contact in Dubai. The court granted the applicant leave to serve the notice outside Australia and deemed the service effective upon completion of the specified acts. The court further amended the notice to reflect the new compliance deadline and specified that service under the order would be considered sufficient service of the notice. The court's ruling facilitated the enforcement of the bankruptcy notice by accommodating the respondent's international status and multiple residences.