Infa-Secure Pty Ltd v Crocker

[2016] FCA 1319

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Infa-Secure Pty Ltd v Crocker [2016] FCA 1319

File number:

QUD 345 of 2016

Judge:

LOGAN J

Date of judgment:

2 November 2016

Catchwords:

BANKRUPTCY – bankruptcy notice issued after certification of taxation following non-consensual notice of discontinuance – sequestration order made against applicant – review of sequestration order – whether debt was owed – applicant alleged incorrect respondent party had appeared – notice of discontinuance given after notice of acting of lawyer filed by respondent – reasonable for respondent which gave notice of acting to assume it was the party named by the applicant in the originating application – respondent entitled to payment of debt for legal costs in accordance with Registrar’s estimate – Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth) r 7.05, r 10.11, r 26.12(7); Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.20

Legislation:

Federal Court (Bankruptcy Rules) 2016 (Cth) r 7.05, r 10.11, r 26.12(7)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 40.20

Cases cited:

Crocker v Toys R Us (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 727

Crocker v Toys R Us (Australia) Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1103

Wren v Mahony (1972) 126 CLR 212

Date of hearing:

2 November 2016

Registry:

Queensland

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Commercial and Corporations

Sub-area:

General and Personal Insolvency

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

17

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr C Johnstone

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Chrysiliou Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Respondent appeared in person

ORDERS

QUD 345 of 2016

BETWEEN:

INFA-SECURE PTY LTD ACN 149 173 660

Applicant

AND:

DEBRA ANN CROCKER

Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	2 NOVEMBER 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for review of the sequestration order is dismissed.

2.The respondent (the applicant to the application for review of the sequestration order) is to pay the applicant’s (the respondent to the application for review of the sequestration order) costs of and incidental to the review, to be taxed if not agreed.

3.The written submissions filed by the respondent (the applicant to the application for review of the sequestration order) not be available for inspection by a non-party without leave of the Court or a Judge.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

LOGAN J:

1. On 22 July 2016, a Registrar made a sequestration order under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) against the estate of Ms Debra Ann Crocker. Ms Crocker has applied, pursuant to r 7.05 of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Rules), for the review of the Registrar’s decision.  The sequestration order was made upon a creditor’s petition filed by Infa-Secure Pty Ltd ACN 149 173 660 (Infa-Secure).  Prior to the making of the sequestration order Ms Crocker had filed a notice of opposition in which she specified as the ground of opposition to sequestration:

   There is no order for costs or judgment in relation to costs against me in favour of the applicant [Infa-Secure]…