FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PROVIDENT CAPITAL LTD v JILLIAN MAY MOLLINGER | [2009] FMCA 988 |
| PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – BANKRUPTCY – Application by applicant creditor to substitute PCL Holdings Ltd (ACN 101 975 633) as applicant creditor – application not opposed – application granted to substitute applicant creditor. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.30, 49 Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999 (Cth), s.15 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), Pt 11, rr.11.01, 11.03, 11.04 |
| McNamara v Langford (1931) 45 CLR 267 |
| Applicant: | PROVIDENT CAPITAL LTD |
| Respondent: | JILLIAN MAY MOLLINGER |
| File Number: | SYG 1493 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Lloyd-Jones FM |
| Hearing date: | 2 October 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 2 October 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms B Nolan |
| The Respondent: | The respondent appeared in person. |
ORDERS
The application filed by the applicant creditor on 16 September 2009, to substitute PCL Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 101 975 633 as applicant creditor, is allowed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1493 of 2008
| PROVIDENT CAPITAL LTD |
Applicant
And
| JILLIAN MAY MOLLINGER |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an Application in a Case filed and presented on 16 September 2009 seeking the following orders:
1. Pursuant to section 49 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) or in the alternative, pursuant to Part 11 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, section 15 of the Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999 and section 30 of the Bankruptcy Act, PCL Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 101 975 633 be substituted as the applicant creditor in these proceedings.
2. Each party bear their own costs of this motion.
3. Any further or other orders that the Court deems fit.
The evidence supporting this application is contained in the affidavit of Michael Roger O’Sullivan sworn 16 September 2009 and filed on that date. There is no objection to that affidavit and it was read into evidence.
Ms Nolan appearing for the applicant creditor stated that Provident Capital Ltd by deed of assignment assigned all its rights and interests entitling the security and the proceedings to a new entity which is PCL Holdings Pty Ltd, absolutely. The affidavit of Michael Roger Sullivan at paragraph 3 states:
3. By deed dated 29 July 2009 (“Deed of Assignment”) the Applicant [Provident Capital Ltd] assigned absolutely to PCL Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 101 975 633 (“PCLH”) all of its right, interests and title in:
3.1 The loan agreement dated 28 March 2003 between the Applicant as lender and the respondent and Hans Peter Mollinger and Beau Joshua jointly as borrower, as subsequently varied by deed on each 19 February 2004 and 26 May 2004;
3.2 mortgage to the Applicant as mortgagee by the Respondent and Hans Peter Mollinger and Jillian Mary Mollinger jointly as mortgagor registered number 94938355 over the whole of the land in certificate of title folio identifier 3/SP76492 and known as Unit 3,9 Seaview St, Ballina in the State of New South Wales; and
3.3 These proceedings.
5. On 29 July 2009 the Applicant mailed to the Respondent…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Provident Capital Ltd v Jillian May Mollinger 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] FMCA 988
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the legal framework governing the substitution of parties in proceedings to enforce judgment debts. It examined the relevant provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court also evaluated whether the substitution would prejudice the respondent's rights. It concluded that the substitution was allowable and did not prejudice the respondent, as the respondent had already been fully informed of the identity of the applicant and the substituted party. The court held that the substitution was valid and would not affect the applicant's standing to enforce the judgment debt.
The court allowed the application to substitute PCL Holdings Pty Ltd as the applicant creditor. The court found that the substitution did not prejudice the respondent and was permissible under the relevant legal framework. The court emphasised that the respondent had already been fully informed of the applicant's identity and the substituted party. The court concluded that the substitution would not affect the applicant's ability to enforce the judgment debt. The court's decision ensured that the applicant could proceed with the enforcement of the judgment debt through the substituted party.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application filed by the applicant creditor on 16 September 2009, to substitute PCL Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 101 975 633 as applicant creditor, is allowed.
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.