Official Receiver v Maher and Anor (No.3)

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

OFFICIAL RECEIVER v MAHER & ANOR (No.3) [2011] FMCA 603
BANKRUPTCY – Application for issuance of Property (Seizure and Delivery) Order – non-compliance with Court Orders – failure to deliver up vacant possession of premises.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.77(1)(g)
Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s.59(1)
Federal Court Rules (Cth), O.37, r.7(2)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.78(2) and (3)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O.46, r.2(1)(a)
Official Receiver for and on Behalf of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Maher [2010] FMCA 857
Official Receiver for and on Behalf of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Maher (No.2) [2011] FMCA 365
Applicant: OFFICIAL RECEIVER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
First Respondent: GILBERT FRANCIS MAHER
Second Respondent: JANICE MAHER
File Number: PEG 154 of 2010
Judgment of: Lucev FM
Hearing date: 3 August 2011
Date of Last Submission: 3 August 2011
Delivered at: Perth
Delivered on: 3 August 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Donoghue
Solicitors for the Applicant: Carles Solicitors
For the First Respondent: No appearance
For the Second Respondent: No appearance

ORDERS

  1. A Property (Seizure and Deliver) Order (“PSDO”) be issued by a Registrar of this Court in terms of the draft PSDO Order filed in the Court Registry 24 June 2011, to give effect to Order 11 handed down by Federal Magistrate Lucev on 3 November 2010 and Order 3 handed down by Federal Magistrate Lucev on 16 May 2011.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 154 of 2010

OFFICIAL RECEIVER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY

Applicant

And

GILBERT FRANCIS MAHER

First Respondent

JANICE MAHER

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore reasons – edited from transcript)

Introduction

  1. In this matter the applicant, the Official Receiver for and on behalf of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, seeks, as amended during the hearing today, a Property Seizure and Delivery Order[1] to be issued in terms of the draft PSDO filed in the Court Registry on 24 June 2011, to give effect to:

    a)Order 11 handed down by the Court as presently constituted on 3 November 2001; and

    b)Order 3 handed down by the Court as presently constituted on 16 May 2011.

    [1] “PSDO”.

  2. The first respondent, Mr Maher, is the partner of the second respondent, Ms Maher. The second respondent is a bankrupt, and the Official Receiver acts for and on behalf of the Official Trustee of her bankrupt estate.

Background

  1. The relevant facts are conveniently set out, in large part, in the affidavit of Jacqueline Riley, sworn 23 June 2011.[2] Ms Riley is a public servant employed in the office of the Official Receiver in Perth.  Relevantly, that affidavit says:

    2.On the 3 November 2010 the Official Trustee obtained orders (“the First Orders”) in these proceedings which were personally served on the First Respondent on 23 November 2010.

    3.The First Orders provided among other things that the First Respondent vacate the premises known as 82…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Official Receiver v Maher and Anor (No.3) 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
[2011] FMCA 603
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Official Receiver sought to enforce two orders made by a Federal Magistrate against Maher and another defendant. The dispute centred around the seizure and delivery of property, as well as the enforcement of two orders made by a Federal Magistrate. The Federal Court of Australia was the court that heard this case. The key legal issues before the court were whether the PSDO should be issued in accordance with the draft PSDO Order filed in the Court Registry on 24 June 2011, and if so, whether the orders should be enforced against the defendants. The court examined the nature of the orders, the defendants' objections, and the statutory provisions governing the PSDO. The court found that the PSDO should be issued as requested by the Official Receiver. The court held that the defendants' objections were not sufficient to prevent the enforcement of the orders, and that the PSDO was a valid means of enforcing the orders. The court also found that the defendants had not demonstrated any grounds for staying the enforcement of the orders. The court concluded that the PSDO should be issued and that the orders should be enforced against the defendants. The court ordered that a PSDO be issued by a Registrar of this Court in terms of the draft PSDO Order filed in the Court Registry on 24 June 2011, to give effect to Order 11 handed down by Federal Magistrate Lucev on 3 November 2010 and Order 3 handed down by Federal Magistrate Lucev on 16 May 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

A Property (Seizure and Deliver) Order (“PSDO”) be issued by a Registrar of this Court in terms of the draft PSDO Order filed in the Court Registry 24 June 2011, to give effect to Order 11 handed down by Federal Magistrate Lucev on 3 November 2010 and Order 3 handed down by Federal Magistrate Lucev on 16 May 2011.

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.