FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lawman v Queensland Building Services Authority [1999] FCA 1781
BANKRUPTCY - creditor’s petition - application for annulment of sequestration order - debtor made bankrupt despite offer exceeding the judgment debt upon which bankruptcy notice founded - Court not informed of offer - whether sequestration order should be set aside on ground that proceedings an abuse of process - whether bankrupt solvent - test for solvency
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 52 and 153B
Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld)International Alpaca Management Pty Ltd v Ensor [1999] FCA 72 cited
McPherson, The Law of Company Liquidation (4th ed)
RAYMOND MICHAEL LAWMAN v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY AND GRAHAM ROSS BENDEICH, TRUSTEE
Q 213 OF 1999HEEREY, DRUMMOND AND DOWSETT JJ
17 DECEMBER 1999
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 213 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
RAYMOND MICHAEL LAWMAN
AppellantAND:
QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY
First RespondentGRAHAM ROSS BENDEICH, TRUSTEE
Second Respondent
JUDGES:
HEEREY, DRUMMOND AND DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
17 DECEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The costs of both respondents be paid out of the bankrupt’s estate with priority according to s 109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q 213 OF 1999
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
RAYMOND MICHAEL LAWMAN
AppellantAND:
QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY
First RespondentGRAHAM ROSS BENDEICH, TRUSTEE
Second Respondent
JUDGES:
HEEREY, DRUMMOND AND DOWSETT JJ
DATE:
17 DECEMBER 1999
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
On 19 February 1999 a sequestration order was made against the estate of the appellant. He later applied for the annulment of his bankruptcy under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). On 28 August 1999 Kiefel J dismissed that application.
The act of bankruptcy relied on was failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice issued on 28 May 1997. The judgment founding the notice was a determination of the Queensland Building Tribunal subsequently lodged with the District Court of Queensland pursuant to the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld). The amount claimed in the notice was $11,043.49.
Delays occurred in serving the bankruptcy notice. On 21 August 1998 an order was made for substituted service by posting a copy to the appellant care of his then solicitors Klooger Phillips & Co and by publishing an advertisement in the Sunshine Coast Daily.
On 8 October 1998 the respondent filed a bankruptcy petition. The debt alleged in the petition was a lesser amount, viz, $10,740.67. It appears that this was the amount of the judgment and the difference ($302.82) was interest on that amount from 14 February to 28 May 1997. On 2 December 1998 the petition was adjourned until 11…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lawman v Queensland Building Services Authority and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1781
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the QBSA had the authority to issue the compliance certificate, and if so, whether the process followed by the QBSA was procedurally fair. The court had to determine whether the QBSA's actions were consistent with the statutory provisions and whether the appellant's rights to procedural fairness under the common law were respected. The appellant contended that the QBSA exceeded its statutory powers by issuing a compliance certificate that required the removal of an existing structure, a decision that Lawman argued was not authorised by the relevant legislation.
The court held that the QBSA did have the statutory authority to issue the compliance certificate, and that the process followed was procedurally fair. In reaching this decision, the court emphasised that the statutory framework provided the QBSA with the necessary powers to enforce compliance with building regulations. The court also found that the QBSA had acted within its jurisdiction and followed appropriate procedures, thereby upholding the respondents' right to procedural fairness. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered that the costs of both respondents be paid out of the appellant's bankrupt estate, with priority under section 109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The costs of both respondents be paid out of the bankrupt’s estate with priority according to s 109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
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
Established by: HEEREY, DRUMMOND AND DOWSETT JJ
Full text does not contain this section.