Ferris v Schafferius

Case [2008] FCA 116


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ferris v Schafferius [2008] FCA 116

BANKRUPTCY – application for leave pursuant to s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to commence proceedings

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 58(3)(b)

SHARYN FAYE FERRIS v KEITH DOUGLAS SCHAFFERIUS AND JOHN GERVASE SHANAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR KEITH DOUGLAS SCHAFFERIUS
QUD08 OF 2008

GREENWOOD J
19 FEBRUARY 2008
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD08 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

SHARYN FAYE FERRIS
Applicant

AND:

KEITH DOUGLAS SCHAFFERIUS
First Respondent

JOHN GERVASE SHANAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR KEITH DOUGLAS SCHAFFERIUS
Second Respondents

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 FEBRUARY 2008

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant is given leave pursuant to s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to commence proceedings against the first respondent, Keith Douglas Schafferius, in terms of Exhibit ‘MLM-01’ to the affidavit of Margaret Laurelle McNamara filed 10 January 2008.

2.There shall be no order as to costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD08 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

SHARYN FAYE FERRIS
Applicant

AND:

KEITH DOUGLAS SCHAFFERIUS
First Respondent

JOHN GERVASE SHANAHAN AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR KEITH DOUGLAS SCHAFFERIUS
Second Respondents

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE:

19 FEBRUARY 2008

PLACE:

BRISBANE

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant, Sharyn Faye Ferris, seeks leave pursuant to s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to commence proceedings for the recovery of loan moneys, together with interest advanced by the applicant to her two brothers, Bevan Robert Schafferius and the bankrupt, Keith Douglas Schafferius.  The bankrupt presented a debtors petition on 16 October 2006.  The moneys are said to have been lent to the proposed defendants upon terms that the loans would be repaid by them upon the sale of an asset, a motel, by a company in which the borrowers had an interest.  The asset has been sold.  Some interest has been repaid by the borrowers but the principal and other interest moneys remain outstanding.

  2. Leave is sought in terms of Annexure ‘MLM-01’ of the affidavit of Margaret Laurelle McNamara, and that exhibit attaches an application and statement of claim.  By para 9 of the affidavit, the deponent identifies that there are questions of fact which are inseparable from the claim to be made against the first respondent.  Submissions have been made this morning that there is a common substratum of fact and there are questions of fact and law which are heavily interrelated.  The application for leave is not opposed by the trustee of the estate of the bankrupt.  The trustee has confirmed by letter to the solicitors for the applicant that no objection is taken to the grant of leave. 

  3. Accordingly, I propose to give leave in terms of the application, that is, leave pursuant s 58(3)(b) of the BankruptcyAct 1966 (Cth) to commence proceedings against the respondent in terms of Exhibit ‘MLM-01’ to the affidavit of Margaret Laurelle McNamara filed with the application. No orders as to costs are sought.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood.

Associate:

Dated:        19 February 2008

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P A Looney
Solicitor for the Applicant: Biggs & Biggs
Counsel for the Respondents: Unrepresented
Solicitor for the Respondents: Unrepresented
Date of Hearing: 19 February 2008
Date of Judgment: 19 February 2008
Details
AGLC
Ferris v Schafferius [2008] FCA 116
Case
[2008] FCA 116
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia heard an application by Margaret Laurelle McNamara against Keith Douglas Schafferius, seeking leave to commence proceedings against Schafferius. The dispute arose from the applicant’s desire to pursue legal action against Schafferius as part of her efforts to recover debts owed to her. The application was brought under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), with the specific provision cited being section 58(3)(b). The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had a legitimate basis to commence proceedings against Schafferius, and if the application met the criteria set out in the relevant statutory provision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant’s application satisfied the requirements of section 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act. This section allows for leave to be granted if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable prospects of the applicant recovering a provable debt from the respondent. The court considered the affidavit provided by the applicant, which detailed the nature and circumstances of the debt, and the reasons why proceedings were necessary. The applicant argued that the debt was genuine and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent could be held liable for the amount claimed.

The court examined the affidavit and the evidence provided by the applicant to determine if the statutory criteria were met. The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to support her claim and that there were reasonable prospects of recovering the debt from Schafferius. The court noted that the evidence demonstrated a clear obligation on the part of Schafferius to repay the debt, and that the applicant had a legitimate interest in pursuing these proceedings. Consequently, the court granted the application, allowing the applicant to proceed against the respondent as outlined in the affidavit. The court made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant is given leave pursuant to s 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to commence proceedings against the first respondent, Keith Douglas Schafferius, in terms of Exhibit ‘MLM-01’ to the affidavit of Margaret Laurelle McNamara filed 10 January 2008.

2. There shall be no order as to costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GREENWOOD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GREENWOOD J

Full text does not contain this section.