Latter, Re J. Ex Parte Hunt Brothers Ltd

Case [1986] FCA 457


It1 THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ClIW ".lUT!-I

WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENER.r?L DIVISION

IN THE MATTER of the

Bankruptcy Act 1966

RE

:

JOHN LATTER

Ex PARTE: HUNT BROTHERS

LIMITED

CORAM: Evatt J

m:

7 0 October 1'386

l=:

Sydney

4.EASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The

credltor's petitlon herein whlch was presented sn 18 July

1386 was listed for hearlng

on 30 September 1986.

When the

matter was called on for hearlng Mr Watson, Sollcltor, appeared for the petltlonlng credltor and Mr Johnson, Sollcltor, appeared

1

for

the

debtor.

Mr Johnson then Indicated to

the Court that

Yesterday (that 1 s 29

September 1986) there was a meeting of

creditors

at

which a composltlon was approved

by

those

credltors. My appllcatlon on behalf

of the debtor today

would be for the dismlssal of the petltlon.

I understand my

friend, Mr Watson, has

an appllcatlon regardlng costs.

Mr Johnson then lndlcated that he had flled

an affldavlt sworn by

himself that mornmu In the matter. After readlng that afflds-llt

the Court was Informed by Mr Watzon that

My cllent

(the petitlonlng credltor) dld not recelve notice

of the (creditor's) meetlnq. However, notwlthstanding that,

I

have seen the Statement of Affalrs

and glven the facts

'llsclosed In

the Statement of Affalrs

whlch 1 s exhibited to

m y frlend's affidavlt,

my mstructions are to consent to the

dlsmlssal of the

petition. However, this

1s the third tlme

In whlch the petition has been llsted f o r

hearing.

On each

prevlous occaslon the creditor

has been ready to proceed.

On being asked

as to whether his client had been Fald

out, Mr

Watson

Indicated

that

that

was

not

the

positlon

and

that

therefore hls cllent zould rank as an

unsecured credltor 13 the

zomposltion.

Mr Watson then sought an order for costs and that

those costs be paid

In the same prlsrlty

as the costs referred to

In the speclal

resolution which 1 s acnexure "JTJ 2 " of

the

afildavit of Mr Johnson;

that 15, an order that the petltioner's

costs be pald In the same prlorlty

as the costs of Johnson and CO

as referred

to as Item C

In the speclal resolution ln the Form

36.

The Court

noted

that

the

chairman

of the

sald

meetlng

of

creditors was one Llndsay Robert Altken and reserved its declslon

In respect of the applicatlon of Mr Johnson.

Havlng considered the matter the Court orders that the petltlon

herem be dismlssed.

The petitlonlng credltor

1 s to have

an

order that its costs tlncludlng any reserved

costs)

be pald by

3 .

the debtor.

Mr Watson's application that that order for costs Se

q1-Jen some priority In the composltlon is

refused, the Court

belnq of the oplnlon that it has

no power to make such

an order.

I certlfy that this and the

id0

precedmg pages are a true copy of the

Reasons for Judgment herein of hls

Honour Mr Justice Evatt

.

Assoclate

Dated: 20-10

-86

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

r m SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

IN THE MATTER of- the

Bankruptcy Act 1966

G:

LATTER

JOHN

EX FARTE: HUNT EROTHERS

LIMITED

W: Evatt J

IjATE:

7 0 October 1386

PLACE:

Sydney

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The credltor S petltlon herem whlch was presented on 18 J u l y

1386 was listed for hearmg on 30 September 1386. When the

matter was called on for hearmg Mr Watson, Sollcltor, appeared

f s r the petltlonlng creditor and Mr Johnson, Sollcitor, appeared

for the debtor.

Mr Johnson then indicated to the Court that

Yesterday (that 1 s 23

September 1986) there was a meetlng of

creditors at whlch

a composltlon was approved by those

credltors. My application on behalf of the debtor today

would be for the dlsmlssal of the petltion.

I understand my

frlend, Mr Watson, has an appllcatlon regarding costs.

3 .

the debtor.

MY Watson’s appllcatlon that that order for costs be

qlven

some priority in the composltlon

1s refused, the Court

belng of the oplnlon that it

has no power to make such

an order.

c

I certlfy that thls and the

#do

precedmq pages are a true copy of the

Reasons for Judgment herein

of hls

Honour Mr Justlce Evatt

.

Associate

Dated:

i O - l 0 - S 6

Details
AGLC
Latter, Re J. Ex Parte Hunt Brothers Ltd [1986] FCA 457
Case
[1986] FCA 457
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves a creditor's petition filed under the Bankruptcy Act 1966, seeking the dismissal of a petition against a debtor, John Latter, by Hunt Brothers Limited. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, South Wales District Registry, General Division, before Justice Evatt on 7 October 1986. The key issue before the court was whether the creditor's petition should be dismissed, and if so, whether the costs of the petition should be awarded to the creditor with priority over other costs in the composition agreement.

Justice Evatt considered the application by the debtor's solicitor, Mr. Johnson, for the dismissal of the petition. Mr. Johnson informed the court that a creditors' meeting had been held the previous day, where a composition was approved by the creditors. Consequently, the petition should be dismissed. The creditor's solicitor, Mr. Watson, indicated that his client had not received notice of the creditors' meeting but had seen the Statement of Affairs. Despite this, Mr. Watson consented to the dismissal of the petition on behalf of his client, who intended to rank as an unsecured creditor in the composition. Mr. Watson also sought an order for costs, requesting that his client's costs be paid with priority over other costs in the composition.

Justice Evatt dismissed the creditor's petition, noting that the petitioner's costs, including any reserved costs, were to be paid by the debtor. However, the court refused Mr. Watson's application for priority of costs in the composition, finding that it had no power to make such an order. Justice Evatt's decision was based on the premise that the dismissal of the petition and the approval of the composition rendered the petition irrelevant, but did not grant the petitioner any special treatment in terms of costs within the composition agreement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.