Jacups, An application by

An application was made by Jacups to the High Court of Australia concerning the interpretation of section 102(1)(c) of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). The applicant sought to set aside a sequestration order made against his estate. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the debt owed to the respondent, a former spouse, constituted a "provable debt" for the purposes of the Act, thereby enabling the respondent to present a creditor's petition.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether a debt arising from a judgment for costs in family law proceedings, where the costs were awarded in favour of the applicant in proceedings that were ultimately dismissed, was a provable debt in bankruptcy. Specifically, the court had to determine if such a debt fell within the exclusion in section 102(1)(c) of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth), which prevents a creditor from presenting a petition based on a debt that is not provable in bankruptcy.

Hayne J held that the debt in question was a provable debt. His Honour reasoned that the costs order was a liquidated sum of money payable by the applicant to the respondent. The fact that the costs were awarded in proceedings that were dismissed did not alter the nature of the debt as a monetary obligation. Section 102(1)(c) of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth) was interpreted to mean that a debt must be provable in bankruptcy for a creditor's petition to be validly presented. As the costs order represented a provable debt, the sequestration order was validly made.