Love, Paul James v Pyramid Building Society (in liq)

[1997] FCA 1339

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BANKRUPTCY - order obtained by petitioning creditor - whether court has sufficient reason to go behind judgment - matters raised speculative - sequestration order made

PAUL JAMES LOVE -v- PYRAMID BUILDING SOCIETY (IN LIQUIDATION)
NO. VG 7101 OF 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 7101  of   1997

BETWEEN:	PAUL JAMES LOVE APPLICANT
AND:	PYRAMID BUILDING SOCIETY (IN LIQUIDATION) RESPONDENT
JUDGES:		HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:		30 JUNE 1997
WHERE MADE:		MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of the debtor Paul James Love.

2. The petitioning creditors costs, of and incidental to the petition, including reserve costs, be taxed and paid in accordance with the statute.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 7101 of 1997

BETWEEN:	PAUL JAMES LOVE APPLICANT
AND:	PYRAMID BUILDING SOCIETY (IN LIQUIDATION) RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	HEEREY J
DATE:	30 JUNE 1997
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The judgment debt on which the bankruptcy notice was found, was for a very large amount, $1,014,682.19.  It was the result of a summary judgment proceedings in the Supreme Court.  The debtor was represented and contested the matter and raised unsuccessfully in the Supreme Court the matters on which he sought to rely today.  I am satisfied I would not be justified in exercising the discretion to go behind that judgment.  While one obviously cannot avoid sympathy for Mr Love and his wife having been one of many casualties of the Pyramid Building Society disaster, the fact remains that the petitioning creditor is owed this debt and there has not been sufficient reason for this Court to go behind it.

The complaints made are in essence speculative; that had different decisions been made as to the tenanting of the properties or the marketing of them, a higher price might have been received.  But having regard to the overall amount of the debt it seems unlikely in the extreme that the matters relied on would have made any practical difference.  So there will be a sequestration order for costs in accordance with the statute, including reserved costs.

I certify that this page and the preceding
page is a true copy of the of the Reasons
for Judgment herein of the Honourable
Justice Heerey

Associate:

Dated:

Counsel for the Applicant:	The debtor appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms S Horovitz
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Madgwicks
Date of Hearing:	30 June 1997
Date of Judgment:	30 June 1997