Gillies v Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd
[2003] FMCA 577
•2 December 2003
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GILLIES & ANOR v MACQUARIE LEASING PTY LTD | [2003] FMCA 577 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Sequestration order – review – where applicant complained that the debt stated in the bankruptcy notice was incorrect – where applicant did not dispute the validity of the Bankruptcy Notice under s.41(5) of the Act – where applicant’s dealings with his trustee were unsatisfactory. |
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s.41(5)
| Applicants: | PETER GILLIES & CLAIRE URPETH |
| Respondent: | MACQUARIE LEASING PTY LTD ACN 002 674 982 |
| File No: | SZ 1484 of 2003 |
| Delivered on: | 2 December 2003 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing date: | 2 December 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | Mr Gillies in person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | M Kumar |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Douros Lawyers |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
The costs of the respondent and the costs of the trustee be taxed, if not agreed, pursuant to the Federal Court Act and Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SZ 1484 of 2003
| PETERS GILLIES & CLAIRE URPETH |
Applicants
And
| MACQUARIE LEASING PTY LTD ACN 002 674 982 |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In this matter the applicant seeks review of a decision of the Registrar of this court, who made a sequestration order against him on 3 September 2003. The applicant filed an affidavit in support of his application consisting of 111 pages.
He complained that he had been misled by the Registry of this court. He complained that he had been misled by the Registrar. He complained that he had been unable to obtain legal advice and he complained the amount of money which was claimed by the judgment creditor was incorrect.
Notwithstanding the detail with which the applicant dealt with certain assertions concerning the validity of the Constitution of Australia, the validity of the certain legislation including the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and the validity of the appointment of the Governor-General, he was unaware of the existence of s 41(5) of the Bankruptcy Act. And he confirmed that he had issued no notice under that Act. It would therefore seem to me that the only circumstance in which he might have had any possibility of persuading a court to upset the decision was not one that was open to him.
I have also received a report from Messrs Sims Partners, whose David John Lee has been appointed the applicant's trustee. It is quite clear from that document that the applicant has not, in the 2 months that have followed since his bankruptcy, been of any assistance to his trustee whatsoever and the trustee is unable to ascertain the extent or nature of his indebtedness. For this reason alone, I might have been disinclined to exercise my jurisdiction to set aside a sequestration order or to annul it as requested by the applicant.
I dismiss the application. I order that the costs of the respondent and the costs of the trustee be taxed, if not agreed, and paid out of the estate of the bankrupt pursuant to the Federal Court Act and Rules.
I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0