DORIS EMILY ELIZABETH MILLER v BONDI SECURITIES AND THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY
No. NB739 of 1993
FED No. 654/94
Number of pages - 23
Bankruptcy
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
GENERAL DIVISION
BEAZLEY J
CATCHWORDS
Bankruptcy - application pursuant to s153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to annul bankruptcy - whether sequestration order irregularly obtained - whether on annulment application court should look behind the judgment to determine whether a debt exists - in looking behind judgment court may be guided by similar principles to those which govern setting aside of judgments - effect of fraud or falsehood in affidavit of debt - whether order for substituted service of Bankruptcy Notice and Creditor's Petition was obtained by fraud - court's residual discretion whether to annul bankruptcy, even where ground made out - factors relevant to that discretion - whether applicant is solvent - delay in bringing the application.
Bankruptcy Act 1966
Re Frank; Ex parte Piliszky (1987) 16 FCR 396
Re Williams (1968) 13 FLR 10
Re Finn and Anor; Ex parte Amoco Australia Ltd and Official Receiver in Bankruptcy (1982) 41 ALR 487
M V Bourke and Anor v Beneficial Finance Corporation Limited (unreported Full Court of the Federal Court 8 December 1993)
Emerson v Wreckair Pty Ltd (1992) 33 FCR 581
Corney v Brien (1951) 84 CLR 343
Wren v Mahony (1972) 126 CLR 212
Owens Bank Limited v Bracco (1992) 2 AC 443
Monroe Schneider Associates (Inc) v No. 1 Raberem Pty. Limited (No. 2) (1992) 37 FCR 234
Trojan v Corporation of Hindmarsh (1987) 16 FCR 37
HEARING
SYDNEY, 7 March, 5, 6 and 16 May 1994
#DATE 2:9:1994
The applicant appeared in person.
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J K Chippindall
Solicitors for the Respondent: Beilby Poulden Costello
ORDER
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
BEAZLEY J This is an application brought pursuant to s153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to annul the bankruptcy made on 23 March 1993 against the estate of Doris Emily Elizabeth Miller. Section 153B provides:
"If the Court is satisfied that a sequestration order ought not to have been made...the Court may make an order annulling the bankruptcy."
The application was based broadly on two grounds. First, the applicant alleges that the bankruptcy was irregularly obtained. Secondly, she alleges there is or was no debt owing to the petitioning creditor. For the reasons which appear below, I propose to dismiss the application.
Background
3. In early 1983, the applicant guaranteed two loans incurred by Kinconne Pty Ltd (Kinconne), a company of which the applicant was a shareholder and director, in respect of borrowings from Bondi Securities Pty Ltd (the petitioning creditor) for the purchase of both the realty and the business of the Avoca Nursing Home at 183 Avoca Street, Randwick. Kinconne is now…
Continue reading Miller, D.E.E v Bondi Securities
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Miller, D.E.E. v Bondi Securities & Anor [1994] FCA 654
- Case
- [1994] FCA 654
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the legal principles governing the setting aside of judgments and applied similar reasoning to the annulment of a bankruptcy. It was established that the court may look behind the judgment to determine whether a debt exists and whether the order for substituted service of the Bankruptcy Notice and Creditor's Petition was obtained through fraud. The court also considered its residual discretion to annul a bankruptcy, even if the grounds for annulment were established, taking into account factors such as the applicant's solvency and the delay in bringing the application.
In reaching its decision, the court found that while the petitioner had established grounds for annulment, the exercise of its residual discretion was against annulment. The petitioner's solvency and the delay in bringing the application weighed against annulment. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent's costs. The orders were settled and entered in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
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
Full text does not contain this section.