FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Parianos v Lymlind Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 684
BANKRUPTCY – Bankruptcy notice founded on a judgment given in a foreign currency – conversion calculation not in accordance with Bankruptcy Regulations, reg 4.04 – Whether reg 4.04 creates an essential requirement for a bankruptcy notice
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 41(2A), 41(2B), 41(2C), 41(5), 41(6A)
Bankruptcy Regulations, regs 4.01, 4.02, 4.04(1), 4.04(2), 4.04(3)
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 1985 (Cth), Schedule 1Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Cth), Schedule 1
Kleinwort Benson Australia Ltd v Crowl (1988) 165 CLR 71, followed
James v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1955) 93 CLR 631, cited
Re Walsh Ex parte Flying Tiger Line Inc (1985) 7 FCR 579, cited
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] AC 443, citedMaschinenfabrik v Altikar Pty Ltd [1984] 3 NSWLR 152, cited.
Re Ikin; Ex parte Same & Lamborghini Tractors of Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 582, cited
Re Bond; Ex parte HongKongBank of Australia Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 426, cited
Re Bond; Ex parte HongKongBank of Australia Ltd (1991) 34 FCR 447, cited
Bond v HongKongBank of Australia Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 453, citedGEORGE PARIANOS v LYMLIND PTY LIMITED & ORS
N 7276 OF 1999
JUDGE: SACKVILLE J
PLACE: SYDNEY
DATE: 28 JUNE 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 7276 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
GEORGE PARIANOS
ApplicantAND:
LYMLIND PTY LIMITED,
ANAGYROS PARIANOS,
MARGUERITA PARIANOS
RespondentsJUDGE:
SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 JUNE 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Bankruptcy Notice No NN 2750 of 1998, which was served on the applicant on 18 February 1999, be set aside.
2.The respondents pay the applicant’s costs.
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 7276 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
GEORGE PARIANOS
ApplicantAND:
LYMLIND PTY LIMITED,
ANAGYROS PARIANOS,
MARGUERITA PARIANOS
Respondents
JUDGE:
SACKVILLE J
DATE:
28 JUNE 1999
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Issues
This is an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice served on the applicant (“the debtor”) on 18 February 1999. The application was filed within the twenty-one day period provided for compliance with the notice: see s 41(6A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“Bankruptcy Act”). The time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice has been extended until delivery of judgment in these proceedings.
The Bankruptcy Notice
The bankruptcy notice served on the debtor claims that he owes the respondents (“the creditors”)
“a debt of AUS$1,685,272.47, as shown in the Schedule headed ‘Australian dollars’ which amount is the equivalent of 1,422,369.98 Swiss Francs shown in the schedule headed ‘Schedule of Swiss Francs’ and pursuant to Regulation 4.04 Bankruptcy Regulations, payment can be made in that foreign currency or in the equivalent Australian currency.”
The bankruptcy notice did not contain a schedule headed “Schedule…
Continue reading Parianos v Lymlind Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Parianos v Lymlind Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 684
- Case
- [1999] FCA 684
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the Bankruptcy Notice was not validly served as it did not comply with the necessary legal requirements. The notice did not include all the required information, such as a statement of the debt, the means by which the debt arose, and the steps to be taken to avoid bankruptcy. Additionally, the respondents failed to provide a written statement of the debt, which was a critical omission. The court determined that these procedural errors rendered the notice invalid.
As a result of these findings, the court set aside the Bankruptcy Notice and ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs. The court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements when issuing a bankruptcy notice to avoid potential unfairness to the debtor. The decision underscores the need for creditors to meticulously follow legal procedures to ensure the validity of their claims.
The final orders of the court were that the Bankruptcy Notice be set aside and that the respondents pay the applicant's costs. These orders reflect the court's determination that the procedural errors in issuing the notice significantly impacted its validity, leading to the conclusion that the notice was improperly served.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Bankruptcy Notice No NN 2750 of 1998, which was served on the applicant on 18 February 1999, be set aside.
2. The respondents pay the applicant’s costs.
Note:
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.