Hogan v Fox
[2008] FMCA 1258
•18 July 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| HOGAN v FOX | [2008] FMCA 1258 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Adequacy of service of bankruptcy notice – making of sequestration order. |
| Bankruptcy Regulations, regulation 16.01 |
| Applicant: | MICHELLE ANNE HOGAN t/as HOGAN STANTON LAWYERS |
| Respondent: | KATALIN FOX |
| File Number: | BRG 4907 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Wilson FM |
| Hearing date: | 18 July 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 18 July 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Brisbane |
| Delivered on: | 18 July 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Grimshaw |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Hogan Stanton Solicitors |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | N/A |
| Respondent: | No appearance on behalf of the Respondent |
ORDERS
A Sequestration Order be made against the estate of KATALIN FOX.
The Applicant Creditor’s costs (including reserved costs, if any) be taxed and paid from the estate of the Respondent Debtor in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
The Court notes that the date of the act of bankruptcy is 15 May 2008.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE |
BRG 407 of 2008
| MICHELLE ANNE HOGAN t/as HOGAN STANTON LAWYERS |
Applicant
And
| KATALIN FOX |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter comes before me on referral from the Registrar having regard to some concern as to the method of service of the Bankruptcy Notice on the respondent debtor.
The affidavit of Hayley Lea Ubank filed 26 June 2008 deals with service of the bankruptcy notice. The notice was served by three means. On 24 April 2008 it was sent by facsimile transmission as deposed to in paragraph 4 of Ms Ubank's affidavit. On the same date it was sent to an email address referred to paragraph 5 of Ms Ubank's affidavit. On the same day a letter was sent to the addresses referred to in para. 6 of the affidavit of Ms Ubank. Such methods of service are comprehended by regulation 16.01 of the Bankruptcy Regulations.
Apparently the Registrar was concerned as to the date of the act of bankruptcy or the date by which the respondent debtor had to comply with the bankruptcy notice. It does not appear that the debtor was misled. On 14 May 2008 she wrote to the petitioning creditor stating inter alia:
I confirm that I received several (five) copies of your bankruptcy notice filed 24 April 2008. I note that you have sent copies to places that you had no business to since they are not listed on any Court documents filed for me as an address for service … the debtor specifically provided a facsimile number which was the same as that to which the bankruptcy notice had been sent and an email address identical to that to which the bankruptcy notice had been sent.
In her letter she further said that she accepted that there was a judgment against her in the petitioning creditor's favour. She also said that she does not have any assets nor any capacity to borrow, she does not have any money and relies on her husband for support. Her only source of income is government benefits.
In my view the material adequately demonstrates that the bankruptcy notice was properly served on 24 April 2008. In those circumstances an act of bankruptcy was committed on 14 May 2008.
The petitioning creditor now seeks a sequestration order. All of the material is otherwise in order.
I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Wilson FM
Associate: Lynnette Chin
Date: 4 September 2008
0
0
1