News Limited, in the matter of Ormond v Ormond - [2001] FCA 1118

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
News Limited, in the matter of Ormond v Ormond [2001] FCA 1118
BANKRUPTCY – creditor’s petition – where act of bankruptcy under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 40(1)(i) by debtor signing authority under s 188 – where court satisfied of matters in Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 52(1) – whether purported deed of arrangement has effect that creditor not competent under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 233(2)(a) to proceed with creditor’s petition – where purported deed of arrangement under Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Pt X disclosed on face not executed in accordance with Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 216(1) – whether purported deed of arrangement not executed in accordance with Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 216(1) invalid on its face – whether purported deed of arrangement valid for purposes of Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 233(2)(a) until declared void under s 222 – whether purported deed of arrangement only so valid where valid on its face – whether purported deed of arrangement to be treated as valid because debtor’s and creditors’ wishes not to be frustrated by trustee’s negligence – whether Musolino v Sidiropoulos (1991) 101 ALR 235 affects present case.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 5(1), 33(1)(c), 40(1)(i), 52(1), 188, s 188A, 189A(1), 190(1), 204, 213(1), 216, 222, 228(1), 228(2), 233(1), 233(2)
Federal Court Rules (Cth) O 14 r 9(3)
Re Dawson; Ex parte Dawson and Arthur Andersen and Co (1985) 5 FCR 133 discussed
Re Lawrence; Ex parte Burns (1985) 9 FCR 9 followed
Burns v Lorac Mining Pty Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 301 followed
Re Gagliardi; Ex parte Mount (1984) 5 FCR 52 considered
Musolino v Sidiropoulos (1991) 101 ALR 235 considered
Re Leeb (1972) 20 FLR 384 referred to
Re Migliorini; Ex parte Silk Bros (Interstate Traders) Pty Ltd (1974) 22 FLR 491 referred to
Gee v Schmutter (1971) 123 CLR 503 referred to
IN THE MATTER OF WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND
NEWS LIMITED v WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND
N 7250 of 2001
IN THE MATTER OF WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND
WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND v GEOFFREY DAVID McDONALD & ANOR
N 7346 of 2001
KATZ J
15 AUGUST 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7250 of 2001

IN THE MATTER OF WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND

BETWEEN:

NEWS LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KATZ J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 AUGUST 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1 A sequestration order be made against the respondent’s estate.
2The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding, those costs to be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7346 of 2001

IN THE MATTER OF WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND

BETWEEN:

WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND
APPLICANT

AND:

GEOFFREY DAVID McDONALD
FIRST RESPONDENT

NEWS LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KATZ J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 AUGUST 2001

WHERE…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read News Limited, in the matter of Ormond v Ormond and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] FCA 1118
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Ormond v Ormond was heard, with the applicant, News Limited, seeking a sequestration order against the respondent's estate. The dispute arose from a complex financial situation involving the respondent’s ability to pay debts as they fell due. News Limited argued that the respondent's financial circumstances warranted the appointment of a trustee to manage their estate.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's financial obligations and circumstances justified the sequestration of their estate. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the respondent's income, expenses, and overall financial health. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether News Limited had a legitimate claim against the respondent that warranted such drastic financial measures.

In delivering the judgment, the court concluded that the respondent's financial situation did not meet the threshold for sequestration. The evidence showed that while the respondent had debts, they were not in a state of insolvency that would warrant the sequestration of their estate. The court also found that the application by News Limited was not substantiated by sufficient evidence to justify the relief sought. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the court ordered News Limited to pay the respondent's costs. The court emphasised that the respondent's financial difficulties, while serious, did not reach the level of insolvency required for sequestration.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 A sequestration order be made against the respondent’s estate.

2 The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding, those costs to be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

1 The application be dismissed.

2 The applicant pay the second respondent’s costs of the proceeding, those costs to be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

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

KATZ J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: KATZ J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7250 of 2001

BETWEEN:	NEWS LIMITED APPLICANT
AND:	WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	KATZ J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7346 of 2001

BETWEEN:	WAYNE RODNEY ORMOND APPLICANT
AND:	GEOFFREY DAVID McDONALD FIRST RESPONDENT NEWS LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	KATZ J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 AUGUST 2001
WHERE…