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 2008GREENWOOD J
19 FEBRUARY 2008
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD08 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
SHARYN FAYE FERRIS
ApplicantAND:
KEITH DOUGLAS SCHAFFERIUS
First RespondentJOHN 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
ApplicantAND:
KEITH DOUGLAS SCHAFFERIUS
First RespondentJOHN 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
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- Ferris v Schafferius [2008] FCA 116
- Case
- [2008] FCA 116
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: GREENWOOD J
Full text does not contain this section.