GRIZONIC v Maurice Blackburn Cashman (No. 1)
[2005] FMCA 937
•28 June 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GRIZONIC v MAURICE BLACKBURN CASHMAN (No. 1) | [2005] FMCA 937 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Bankruptcy Notice – application for adjournment – where application made for instalment paper order after issue of bankruptcy notice – in utility of application. |
| Re Moss; Ex parte Tour Finance Ltd (1968) 13 FLR 101 Lindholt v Merritt Madden Printing Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 260 |
| Applicant: | CLAUDIO GRIZONIC |
| Respondent: | MAURICE BLACKBURN CASHMAN PTY LTD (ACN 105 657 949) |
| File Number: | SYG1295 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 28 June 2005 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 28 June 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 28 June 2005 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr D Oliveri |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr J Johnson |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Maurice Blackburn Cashman |
ORDERS
Application for adjournment declined.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG1295 of 2005
| CLAUDIO GRIZONIC |
Applicant
And
| MAURICE BLACKBURN CASHMAN PTY LTD (ACN 105 657 949) |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter first came before the Court on 31 May 2005 as an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice. It was adjourned until 14 June 2005 and then adjourned again until today 28 June 2005. The applicant debtor now comes to me and asks for another adjournment. The reason given is that an application has been made to the Local Court of New South Wales for an instalment payment order.
An instalment payment order, had it been made prior to the time of the issue of the bankruptcy notice, would have prevented the bankruptcy notice being validly issued because the judgment would have been stayed. However, there is clear law to the effect that if there is no stay at the time of the issue of the bankruptcy notice a subsequent stay will not avail; Re Moss; Ex parte Tour Finance Ltd (1968) 13 FLR 101; Lindholt v Merritt Madden Printing Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 260. In these circumstances even if I was to grant a short adjournment so that the instalment order could be obtained the creditor would still be entitled to act on his bankruptcy notice.
There being no utility in granting an adjournment on the basis requested, and because there is no other basis put forward I decline to grant an adjournment.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date:
0
1
0