in the matter of Whiteman v Whiteman

In the matter of Whiteman v Whiteman, the debtor applied for a stay of proceedings under a sequestration order and for the court to dismiss the petition on the basis that the applicant had not proven solvency. The applicant had earlier obtained a judgment against the debtor for tax debts, and the petition was based on that judgment. The debtor argued that the court should dismiss the petition for other sufficient cause because the applicant had not demonstrated solvency. The court considered whether it should exercise its discretion to dismiss the petition and whether it should stay the proceedings. The court found that the applicant had adduced proof of the matters required by s 52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), and there was no evidence of the debtor’s solvency. The court held that it should not look behind a judgment obtained against the debtor on 18 August 2017 for a sum of $8,453,699.99 (judgment) upon which the petition was based and should not exercise its discretion to dismiss the petition. The registrar’s order should be affirmed, and the application dismissed. The court was not persuaded that it should exercise its discretion to stay proceedings under the sequestration order.

The court found that the debtor's argument for the court to dismiss the petition for other sufficient cause was unavailing. The court held that it should not look behind a judgment obtained against the debtor on 18 August 2017 for a sum of $8,453,699.99 (judgment) upon which the petition was based. The court further held that the debtor had not demonstrated solvency. The court found that the applicant had adduced proof of the matters required by s 52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The court held that the onus was on the debtor to demonstrate sufficient cause to dismiss the petition. The court found that the debtor had not discharged that onus. The court held that the registrar's order should be affirmed, and the application dismissed. The court was not persuaded that it should exercise its discretion to stay proceedings under the sequestration order. The court held that the debtor had not shown that there was a genuine dispute as to the liability to pay the debt. The court found that the debtor had not demonstrated that the amount owed would be reduced to an amount below the minimum amount that supports a petition. The court held that the stay application was unmeritorious.