MAI v Bui
[2009] FMCA 1262
•7 December 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MAI v BUI | [2009] FMCA 1262 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Refusal of adjournment – sequestration order made. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss.52, 153A |
| Applicant: | PHUONG MAI |
| Respondent: | THUAN QUANG BUI |
| File Number: | SYG 662 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 7 December 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 7 December 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 7 December 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr A Di Francesco |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | East West Lawyers |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Merewether & Co |
ORDERS
Sequestration order is made against the estate of Thuan Quan Bui.
The creditor’s costs (including reserved costs) be taxed in accordance with the Federal Magistrate’s Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 and paid from the estate of the Respondent Debtor in accordance with the Act.
Under the Bankruptcy Regulations a copy of this sequestration order be given to the Official Receiver in Sydney within two days.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 662 of 2009
| PHUONG MAI |
Applicant
And
| THUAN QUANG BUI |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter came before me for the hearing of a creditor’s petition on 3 December 2009. At the request of the debtor, I granted a short adjournment until 7 December 2009 so that attempts could be made to negotiate an arrangement with the creditor. No arrangement was negotiated but today Mr Merewether, who appears on behalf of the debtor, sought a further adjournment on the basis that one of the properties owned by the debtor had been the subject of an offer for sale. I sighted a copy of a fax to Mr Merewether from a real estate agent indicating that an offer of $730,000.00 had been made for a particular property owned by the debtor and his former wife.
I am told by Mr Merewether that there is a mortgage of $600,000.00 spread over three properties owned by the debtor and his former wife and that two of these properties are now the subject of contracts for sale but I have no further information. It will be clear from the file that the matter is one that has been proceeding through the courts for a considerable time and that a number of attempts have been made to resolve the issues without success. I think in all the circumstances and given the entitlement of the creditor to a sequestration order on the basis that an act of bankruptcy has been committed and that the amount owed to the creditor has not been paid that it is not in the public interest that I should give further adjournments in this matter.
If it is true that the sale proceeds of all the properties will pay out the debtor’s creditors then, of course, the debtor would be entitled to apply for an annulment of the bankruptcy under s.153A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the “Act”) and it will be as if no order was ever made against him. Having considered the evidence provided by the applicant, I am satisfied that the respondent committed the act of bankruptcy alleged in the petition as amended. I am satisfied with the proof of the other matters required by s.52 of the Act. The Court notes that the date of the act of bankruptcy is 18 March 2009.
I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date: 17 December 2009
0
0
1