MOSKIOS v Bishay

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Judge Altobelli considered an application by Reda Bishay to review a sequestration order made against his estate on 26 February 2013 by a District Registrar. The sequestration order was based on an act of bankruptcy committed on 27 November 2012, stemming from Mr Bishay's failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice. Mr Bishay sought to have the sequestration order set aside, along with the dismissal of the creditor's petition. Terry Moskios, the judgment creditor and applicant before the Registrar, opposed Mr Bishay's application.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Bishay was solvent at the relevant time, meaning he was able to pay his debts as they fell due, pursuant to section 52(2)(a) of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). Additionally, the court had to determine if there was "other sufficient cause" for setting aside the bankruptcy notice and the subsequent sequestration order, as contemplated by section 52(2)(b) of the Act, due to alleged deficiencies in the bankruptcy notice.

Judge Altobelli reasoned that the evidence presented, including affidavits from Mr Bishay and his accountant, demonstrated that Mr Bishay was indeed solvent. The court noted that the net amount of the disputed judgments between the parties was $18,000, and that Mr Bishay had other assets and income streams that indicated his ability to meet his financial obligations. Furthermore, the court found that while there were some technical deficiencies in the bankruptcy notice, they did not amount to "other sufficient cause" to set aside the sequestration order, particularly in light of the applicant's solvency.

Consequently, the court ordered that the sequestration order made against the estate of Reda Bishay on 26 February 2013 be set aside, and that the Creditors Petition filed on 18 December 2012 be dismissed. The court also directed that any applications for costs arising from these orders be dealt with by written submissions.