Fry v Ajinvan Pty Ltd

Fry (the applicant) sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Federal Court. The dispute concerned the interpretation of section 102(1) of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth), which deals with the annulment of a bankruptcy order. The applicant had been declared bankrupt on 15 December 1995. On 18 March 1996, he applied to the Federal Court for an order annulling the bankruptcy. The primary judge dismissed the application, and the Full Federal Court dismissed an appeal against that decision.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant had established a sufficient basis for the annulment of his bankruptcy under section 102(1) of the *Bankruptcy Act*. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated that the bankruptcy order ought not to have been made, or that he had discharged his debts. The applicant contended that he had paid all his debts, and that the bankruptcy was no longer necessary.

Gleeson CJ and McHugh J, in a joint judgment, held that the applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements of section 102(1). Their Honours noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that all his debts had been paid. Furthermore, they found that the applicant had not established that the bankruptcy order ought not to have been made in the first place. The court reiterated the principle that the onus is on the applicant seeking annulment to prove the grounds for annulment.

Leave to appeal was refused.