FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HARRISON v MCKAY (No.2) | [2016] FCCA 2032 |
| Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – whether a writ of possession should be issued – noncompliance with Court order – potential contempt of Court – writ of possession issued – form of writ of possession attached. |
| Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.27, 30. Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s.104. |
| Cases cited: |
| Applicant: | BRETT RICHARD GEOFFREY HARRISON |
| Respondent: | MARGARET ANN MCKAY |
| File Number: | SYG 271 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Street |
| Hearing date: | 9 August 2016 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 9 August 2016 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 9 August 2016 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr B Skinner |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Church & Grace |
| No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent |
ORDERS
Pursuant to r.29.11 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, a writ of possession of real property is issued authorising the Sheriff to enter the property known as 4/174 Keppel Street, Bathurst in the State of New South Wales being the property contained in Folio Identifier 4/SP45835 and directs the Sheriff to give possession of the said property to the person entitled to possession.
Pursuant to r.25B.73(1) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, the respondent is required to attend Court at 2:15 pm on 17 August 2016 for the Court to consider and determine whether to have the respondent charged with contempt for failing to comply with order 1 made on 3 March 2016.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 271 of 2016
| BRETT RICHARD GEOFFREY HARRISON |
Applicant
And
| MARGARET ANN MCKAY |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application within the Court’s jurisdiction under s.27 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) in which a trustee is seeking an order for a writ of possession of real property of the respondent. On 3 March 2016, this Court made an order for the respondent to deliver up the premises of 4/174 Keppel Street, Bathurst in the state of New South Wales, being property contained in the folio identifier SP45835, within 28 days.
On the evidence before the Court the respondent was served with that order and has failed to comply with that order. The applicant has also served evidence consistent with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (NSW) of serving a notice to the occupier for the purpose of obtaining a writ of possession. This Court, pursuant to r.29.11 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 rules, has power to issue a writ in the same nature as may have been issued in the Supreme Court of the relevant State in which the judgment or order has been made. This Court has ample power under s.30 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to make orders that facilitate the trustee obtaining property divisible amongst the bankrupt’s creditors. This includes ample power to sell jointly owned and divisible property.
Mr Skinner of counsel directed the Court to the history behind the process under which this Court may make orders in respect of which a sheriff of a State Court will enforce the same, as discussed by the learned Levine J in Teese v Woodgate (2004) 62 NSWLR 127. Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) provides for the issue of a writ of possession and falls within r.29.11 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules.
The issue of the writ under r.39.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (NSW) is a matter of procedure picked up by s.79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and is within the scope of associated jurisdiction of this Court under s.18 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth).
The real property is vested in the trustee and the trustee is entitled to possession. I am satisfied on the material before the Court that this is an appropriate matter in which to issue a writ of possession. The Court settled the form of the writ of possession that was signed and sealed.
A copy of the form of writ of possession is attached to these reasons. On the material before the Court, the respondent has engaged in a potential contempt by the failure to comply with the order of 3 March 2016 and, accordingly, the Court also proposes to order that the respondent attend in person before the Court on a date fixed in the order, to consider and determine whether to have the respondent charged with contempt for failing to comply with order 1 made on 3 March 2016.
The Court notes that if the respondent fails to appear on that date in person, the Court will consider whether to issue a warrant for the arrest of the respondent.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street
Date: 7 September 2016
Attachment to Reasons for Judgment in Harrison v McKay (No.2) [2016] FCCA 2032
Form 60 (version 4)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 s 104, UCPR 39.1
WRIT OF POSSESSION
| COURT DETAILS | ||
| Court | Federal Circuit Court of Australia | |
| Division | Bankruptcy | |
| Registry | Sydney | |
| Case number | SYG271/2016 | |
| TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS | ||
| Applicant | Brett Richard Geoffrey Harrison | |
| Respondent | Margaret Ann McKay | |
| JUDGMENT DETAILS | ||
| Person entitled to execution of judgment | Brett Richard Geoffrey Harrison, Applicant | |
| Person liable to execution of judgment | Margaret Ann McKay, Respondent | |
| TO THE SHERIFF OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ALL SHERIFF'S OFFICERS | ||
| Description of land | 4/174 Keppel Street, Bathurst in the State of New South Wales being the property contained in Folio Identifier 4/SP45835 | |
Enter the land described above and cause the person entitled to execution of judgment to have possession of it.
| ISSUING DETAILS |
This writ continues to be in force for 12 months from the date of issue or such further time as is permitted under UCPR 39.20.
| Writ issued on | 9 August 2016 |
| Issued at | Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Sydney, NSW |
| Signature | |
| Capacity | Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia |
| Date writ received by Sheriff |
[on separate page]
| DETAILS OF PERSON ENTITLED TO EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT | ||||
| Name | Brett Richard Geoffrey Harrison | |||
| Address for service | Level 1 | |||
| 20 | Castlereagh | Street | ||
| Sydney | NSW | 2000 | ||
| Telephone | (02) 9233 1155 | |||
| Fax | (02) 9221 6771 | |||
| gpignone@churchgrace.com.au | ||||
| ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ASSIST SHERIFF’S OFFICE | ||||
| Is any person in occupation of the land pursuant to a right of occupation under a residential tenancy agreement, within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010? | c Yes r No | |||
- AGLC
- Harrison v McKay (No.2) [2016] FCCA 2032
- Case
- [2016] FCCA 2032
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff had established a sufficient likelihood of success in the main proceedings to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction. This involved an assessment of whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the contractual obligations owed to the plaintiff, and whether the plaintiff had a strong enough case to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction before a full trial.
Judge Street applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, which require the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction. His Honour considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the alleged breaches and the potential harm that would be suffered by each party depending on whether the injunction was granted or refused. The Court weighed the potential prejudice to the plaintiff if the injunction was not granted against the potential prejudice to the defendant if it was.
The Court ultimately granted the interlocutory injunction, finding that the plaintiff had established a sufficient likelihood of success and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. The injunction was granted to restrain the defendant from continuing the alleged breaches pending the final determination of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.