This matter has a fairly lengthy history which I reviewed on 11 July 1989 when it was last before the Court. The petition was then adjourned until today but upon the Court imposing certain conditions of the adjournment, which I need not reiterate, save to say that the first condition which was the key condition was that the debtor appoint a registered trustee in bankruptcy to examine his financial affairs who could then report the position on those affairs to the Court.
That condition was not complied with. It appears that yesterday the debtor spoke to a registered trustee in bankruptcy who saw him this morning and it is possible or perhaps likely that within a period of 7 to 10 days or thereabouts the trustee would be able to sufficiently examine the financial affairs of the debtor to prepare an appropriate
report on them for the Court.
It was with reluctance that I granted the adjournment on the last occasion in all the circumstances then mentioned and imposed the conditions upon the adjournment. Non compliance with the conditions is a matter which counsel who appears for the debtor fairly says could not be the subject of any probative material that would assist in the matter. I have no evidence as to why the condition numbered l(a) was not complied with. It follows therefore that the other condition of l(b) cannot be complied with and nor could l(d) in those circumstances. Condition l(b) was not complied with technically in that the requisite notices referred to were not sent out until later, but I do not attach any significance to that matter for present purposes.
It may be that if the matter is adjourned for a period of some two weeks as is sought on behalf of the debtor that there would be a report from Mr Sherlock, the registered trustee who has been approached by the debtor, and that something may emerge from that which would throw light upon what the fate of the petition should be. However, in the
light of the history of the matter as reviewed on 11 July and
in light of the fact that there has been non-compliance with
the fundamental conditions imposed on the adjournment of the application for a sequestration the present application for adjournment should in the exercise of the Court's discretion be refused.
Accordingly, I refuse the application for adjournment and the petition shall proceed.
I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.
I
Associate
Dated:
8 August 1989
Counsel for the Applicant (Debtor):
Mr. G. Whitlam
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Forshaws
Solicitor for the Respondent
Australian Government
(Petitioning Creditor):
Solicitor
Date of Hearing:
8 August 1989
Date of Judgment:
8 August 1989
Details
AGLC
Jobbins v Capel Court Corporation Ltd [1989] FCA 538
Case
[1989] FCA 538
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Jobbins v Capel Court Corporation Ltd was heard. The case involved a bankruptcy petition against Ross J. Algie. The matter had been previously before the Court, with the petition being adjourned until 8 August 1989. The Court had imposed certain conditions on the adjournment, one of which required the debtor to appoint a registered trustee to examine his financial affairs. The debtor had not complied with this condition, leading to the continuation of the case on 8 August.
The primary legal issue the Court had to address was whether the application for an adjournment should be granted. The Court had to consider the debtor's failure to comply with the conditions imposed on the previous adjournment, and whether this non-compliance warranted a refusal of the application for adjournment. Additionally, the Court had to determine the appropriate course of action given the history of the case and the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance.
The Court found that the debtor's non-compliance with the fundamental conditions of the adjournment was significant. Given the history of the case and the lack of compliance, the Court exercised its discretion and refused the application for an adjournment. The Court concluded that the petition should proceed, despite the debtor's failure to meet the conditions. This decision was based on the Court's assessment that the conditions were critical for the progression of the case, and their non-fulfillment warranted a refusal of the adjournment application.
The Court's final order was to refuse the application for adjournment, and the bankruptcy petition against Ross J. Algie was to proceed. This decision was based on the Court's evaluation of the debtor's non-compliance with the conditions of the previous adjournment and the overall circumstances of the case.