Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Slater and Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Nicholls

This matter concerned a creditor's petition brought by Michael Wilson & Partners Limited against Mr. Slater. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr. Slater was ordinarily resident in Australia at the relevant time, which was a prerequisite for the court to exercise jurisdiction to make a sequestration order under the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether Mr. Slater was ordinarily resident in Australia for the purposes of the *Bankruptcy Act*. This involved assessing the factual circumstances of his departure from and absence from Australia, and whether such absence could be characterised as temporary or otherwise. The court considered the period of absence, the reasons for it, and the establishment of residence elsewhere.

Applying the principles from *Restom v Battenberg* and *Re Vassis; Ex parte Leung*, the court found that Mr. Slater's absence from Australia, which commenced in August 2005 and continued with only brief return visits for legal proceedings, was sufficiently prolonged to conclude that he was not ordinarily resident in Australia. The evidence indicated he had established residence in the United Kingdom since 2010, residing there continuously with his fiancée. Consequently, the court was not satisfied that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the creditor's petition.

The creditor's petition was dismissed, and Michael Wilson & Partners Limited was ordered to pay Mr. Slater's costs.