Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd v Kedem

Johnson Lawyers Legal Practice Pty Ltd (the Applicant) sought a sequestration order against Kedem (the Respondent). The Respondent contended that he did not owe the sums sought by the Applicant, arguing that he was solvent and the core issue was the existence of the debt itself, not his insolvency. The Respondent also raised the issue of whether the hearing of the petition should have been adjourned pending the outcome of separate Supreme Court proceedings.

The Court was required to determine whether the Respondent had established "other sufficient cause" to prevent the making of a sequestration order. This involved assessing whether the Respondent's arguments regarding his solvency and the existence of the debt, as well as his request for an adjournment, constituted sufficient grounds to dismiss the petition. The Court also considered the relevance of the Supreme Court proceedings and the existing judgments obtained by the Applicant.

Judge Simpson found that the Respondent had not made out "other sufficient cause" for the sequestration order not to be made. The Court noted that the Applicant had established a prima facie case for the order. The Respondent's assertion of solvency and dispute over the debt did not, in the circumstances, warrant going behind the existing judgments, as there was no prima facie case of fraud, collusion, or miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the Court found that the Respondent had not provided admissible material regarding the Supreme Court proceedings to justify an adjournment. The Court agreed with the reasoning of the Registrar, who had previously made orders, that the interests of justice were best served by making the sequestration order.