Levy v Reddy

In the case of Levy v Reddy, the applicant, Peter Maurice Levy, sought interim orders under Section 29 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to restrain the respondent, Mark Reddy, from disposing of his divisible property and to appoint an interim receiver for the property situated in Australia. The application was heard on an ex parte basis, with additional affidavits from Michael Anthony Coates, the applicant's solicitor, and Jason Walter Bettles, the proposed receiver, supporting the application. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent was a bankrupt under the United Kingdom's Insolvency Act 1986, and if the Australian court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver for the respondent's divisible property situated in Australia.

The court found that Mark Reddy was indeed a bankrupt pursuant to an order from the High Court of Justice of the United Kingdom. It was further determined that the High Court of Justice is a court of a prescribed country under Section 29 of the Bankruptcy Act. The court was satisfied that the respondent's estate, as defined by the Insolvency Act 1986, vested in the applicant immediately upon the appointment of bankruptcy, and that the respondent's property, including real property in Australia, fell within the statutory definition of the bankrupt's property. Consequently, the court found that it had jurisdiction to grant the interim orders sought by the applicant.

The court issued the following interim orders: restraining the respondent from disposing of his divisible property, appointing Jason Walter Bettles as the receiver of the respondent's divisible property, and requiring the respondent to deliver a statement of affairs to the receiver within 14 days of service of the orders. The court also directed the applicant's solicitors to deliver a letter to the District Registrar, Queensland Registry, Federal Court of Australia, and scheduled a further hearing in the matter for 6 March 2009.