Peek v Hennessy

In the Federal Court of Australia, Saskia Peek and McQuitty sought extensions of time to comply with bankruptcy notices issued against them. They argued that they should not have to comply with the notices until the High Court determines the constitutional validity of certain judgments. The respondents, Hennessy Builders Pty Ltd and John Paul Hennessy, opposed the applications, stating that the applicants had not satisfied the requirements under sections 41(6A) and 30 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) for an extension of time for compliance with the bankruptcy notices and for setting aside the bankruptcy notices.

The court had to determine whether the applicants had established a basis for extensions of time to comply with the bankruptcy notices and whether it should go behind final judgments. The court found that the applicants had not satisfied the requirements under sections 41(6A) and 30 of the Bankruptcy Act for an extension of time for compliance with the bankruptcy notices and for setting aside the bankruptcy notices. The applicants had not pointed to any proceedings instituted by either of them personally, and the attempts of Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd to file an application in the High Court did not initiate a relevant proceeding. Additionally, there was no proceeding seeking to set aside the orders of the District Court made on 11 December 2018 that the applicants pay the amounts of costs assessed.

The court dismissed the originating applications and ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis. The court found that the applicants' applications were an abuse of process, were without merit, and were nonsense. The court did not consider it appropriate to go behind the final judgments of the District Court and the High Court.