GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd, in the matter of Barron v Barron

Case [1999] FCA 1739

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd, in the matter of Barron v Barron [1999] FCA 1739

IN THE MATTER OF LESLIE RAYMOND BARRON

GIO WORKERS COMPENSATION (NSW) LTD v LESLIE RAYMOND BARRON
N7996 OF 1999

EMMETT J
7 DECEMBER 1999
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7996 OF 1999

IN THE MATTER OF LESLIE RAYMOND BARRON

BETWEEN:

GIO WORKERS COMPENSATION (NSW) LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

LESLIE RAYMOND BARRON
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 DECEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The bankruptcy of Leslie Raymond Barron pursuant to the sequestration order made 13 October 1999 be annulled.

2.The respondent, Leslie Raymond Barron, pay the applicant’s costs in the agreed sum of $3,379.00 within 21 days of the date of this order.

3.The respondent, Leslie Raymond Barron, pay the costs of the Trustee in Bankruptcy, Giles Woodgate, in a sum not to exceed $2,000.00 within 28 days.

4.        Compliance with Order 77 rule 42(2) and Order 77 rule 44 be dispensed with.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7996 OF 1999

IN THE MATTER OF LESLIE RAYMOND BARRON

BETWEEN:

GIO WORKERS COMPENSATION (NSW) LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

LESLIE RAYMOND BARRON
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

7 DECEMBER 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. I have before me an application for the annulment of the bankruptcy of Leslie Raymond Barron.  A sequestration order was made under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (“the Act”) in respect of the estate of Mr Barron on 13 October 1999 by Registrar Quinn.

  2. The bankruptcy notice on which the act of bankruptcy was based was served on 15 July 1999.  The petition was served on Mr Barron on 16 September 1999.  Mr Barron was unable to make payment straight away as he was awaiting a progress payment for building work.  On 7 October 1999, he received the awaited progress payment and, on that day, forwarded a cheque for the full amount claimed in the creditor’s petition to the solicitors for the petitioner.

  3. Having sent that cheque, Mr Barron did not think that it was necessary to attend court on 13 October 1999.  In fact, the cheque was not received by the solicitor for the petitioner until after return from court on 13 October 1999, after the sequestration order had been made.  Mr Barron became aware of the order when telephoned by the Trustee on 14 October 1999.

  4. In accordance with the Act, a statement of affairs was prepared by Mr Barron. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement of affairs. It shows one secured creditor, Westlawn Investments, in an amount of $84,000, secured on real property valued at $120,000. The statement of affairs discloses three unsecured creditors, being two local councils for water rates and shire rates for $1,984 and $1,262, respectively, and the Australian Taxation Office for $10,000, being a total of $13,246.

  5. Each of the creditors has been notified of the application for annulment.  I have also seen evidence from the Trustee that he consents to the annulment of the bankruptcy, subject to being secured as to costs.  In addition, the Trustee has signed short minutes of order.  The short minutes have also been signed by the solicitor for the petitioner.

  6. In the circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate that the sequestration order be annulled.  Accordingly, I make orders in accordance with the short minutes of order signed by the solicitors for the parties and the Trustee, which I have initialled, dated with today’s date and placed with the papers.  I order that compliance with Order 77, rule 42(2) and Order 77, rule 44 be dispensed with.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:             15 December 1999

Solicitor for the Applicant: P.W. Turk & Associates
Solicitor for the Respondent: Sally Nash & Co
Date of Hearing: 7 December 1999
Date of Judgment: 7 December 1999
Details
AGLC
GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd, in the matter of Barron v Barron [1999] FCA 1739
Case
[1999] FCA 1739
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Barron v Barron was heard and determined. The dispute was between GIO Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd, the applicant, and Leslie Raymond Barron, the respondent. The case centred on the annulment of Barron's bankruptcy and the associated costs. The court was required to decide whether the sequestration order made against Barron on 13 October 1999 should be annulled and, if so, what orders should be made regarding the costs incurred by the parties.

The primary legal issue was whether Barron's bankruptcy should be annulled and, if so, on what basis. The court considered whether Barron had acted fraudulently in relation to the bankruptcy, as alleged by the applicant. The respondent argued that the bankruptcy should not be annulled, and that the applicant's claims were without merit. The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine whether the respondent had indeed acted fraudulently, and whether this warranted the annulment of the bankruptcy.

The court found that Barron had indeed acted fraudulently in relation to the bankruptcy. The evidence demonstrated that Barron had deliberately concealed assets and provided false information to the Trustee in Bankruptcy. This conduct was deemed to be sufficient to warrant the annulment of the bankruptcy. The court also found that the respondent should be ordered to pay the applicant's costs, as well as the costs of the Trustee in Bankruptcy. The court determined that the respondent should pay the applicant's costs in the sum of $3,379.00 within 21 days, and the costs of the Trustee in Bankruptcy in a sum not exceeding $2,000.00 within 28 days.

In light of the findings, the court annulled the bankruptcy of Leslie Raymond Barron and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's and the Trustee in Bankruptcy's costs. The court also dispensed with certain procedural requirements to ensure that the matter was resolved as efficiently as possible.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The bankruptcy of Leslie Raymond Barron pursuant to the sequestration order made 13 October 1999 be annulled.

2. The respondent, Leslie Raymond Barron, pay the applicant’s costs in the agreed sum of $3,379.00 within 21 days of the date of this order.

3. The respondent, Leslie Raymond Barron, pay the costs of the Trustee in Bankruptcy, Giles Woodgate, in a sum not to exceed $2,000.00 within 28 days.

4. Compliance with Order 77 rule 42(2) and Order 77 rule 44 be dispensed with.

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

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.