Harris v De Robillard

In this matter, the applicant, Mr Christian Roger de Robillard, sought a review of orders made by a Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on 17 August 2017. These orders included the sequestration of Mr de Robillard’s estate and the fixation of costs payable to the respondents, who were creditors. The sequestration order was based on an alleged act of bankruptcy, specifically Mr de Robillard's failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice demanding payment of a judgment debt and accrued interest. This debt arose from two certificates of determination of costs assessment, which were themselves issued following cost orders made against Mr de Robillard in Supreme Court proceedings he had initiated.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the creditors had sufficiently proven the existence of a debt to justify the sequestration order, particularly in light of Mr de Robillard's contention that the judgment annexed to the bankruptcy notice contained a material error. Mr de Robillard argued that the "Form of Judgment" did not accurately reflect the judgment entered in the Local Court's computer system, specifically pointing to a typographical error in the spelling of his surname, which included an extra "i". The Court was required to conduct a hearing de novo, meaning it had to consider the petition afresh and be satisfied of the matters stipulated in section 52 of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth), including the existence of the debt, the service of the petition, and the matters stated in the petition.

The Court reasoned that a review under section 104(2) of the *Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999* (Cth) is a hearing de novo, requiring the judge to be satisfied of the elements of section 52 of the *Bankruptcy Act* independently of the Registrar's decision. The Court noted that the alleged typographical error in the spelling of Mr de Robillard's name in the Form of Judgment was a central point of contention. However, the Court found that the difference between "de Robillard" and "de Robilliard" was minor and did not, in the circumstances, invalidate the debt or the bankruptcy notice. The Court ultimately dismissed Mr de Robillard's application for review.

The application for review of the orders made by the Registrar was dismissed. The respondents' costs of the review were ordered to be paid out of the estate of the applicant, with the same priority as the costs of the petition.