FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PROVIDENT CAPITAL LTD v MOLLINGER | [2009] FMCA 536 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Creditor’s Petition – respondent debtor’s opposition to Creditor’s Petition – considerations relevant to review – question in respect of calculation of interest. |
| Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.33, 34A, 52, 306, 41(5), 43 Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth), reg.16.01(1)(c) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.171 Federal Court Rules (Cth), O.13 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss.101, 136 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW), Schedule 5 |
| Adams v Lambert [2006] HCA 10 Joseph Richard Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1995] FCA 971 Matthews v Collett [2000] FCA 224 McDonald v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2001] FCA 140 Provident Capital Ltd v Mollinger & Anor [2009] FMCA 525 Re Clubb; ex parte Clubb v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) 93 ALR 123 Re Emerson; Ex parte Wreckair Pty Ltd (1991) 101 ALR 315 Re Greenhill; ex parte Myer (NSW) Ltd (1984) 5 FCR 84 Re Small; ex parte Westminster Bank v Trustees [1934] Ch 541 Re Wilhelmsen; ex parte Gould (1986) 11 FCR 107 Seovic Civil Engineering Pty Ltd v Groeneveld (1999) 161 ALR 543 Thai v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 53 FCR 252 |
| Applicant: | PROVIDENT CAPITAL LTD |
| Respondent: | BEAU JOSHUA MOLLINGER |
| File Number: | SYG 1492 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Lloyd-Jones FM |
| Hearing date: | 3 October 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 18 June 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms B Nolan |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Tiernan & Associates |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | The respondent appeared as a self-represented litigant |
ORDERS
The parties are to prepare written submissions, supported by authorities, clarifying the calculation of interest claimed on the judgment debt when subsequent repayments are made after the date of judgment or orders.
The parties’ submissions are to address whether these payments or credits should be taken into account in the calculation of interest.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1492 of 2008
| PROVIDENT CAPITAL LTD |
Applicant
And
| BEAU JOSHUA MOLLINGER |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The proceedings
This application for review was filed by Beau Joshua Mollinger, the respondent debtor, opposing a Creditor’s Petition filed on 11 June 2008. Similar applications were filed by his father, Hans Peter Mollinger, and his mother, Jillian May Mollinger. All three were parties to Supreme Court of New South Wales proceedings 1319 of 2004 which resulted in consent orders being made on 31 January 2005. Separate Bankruptcy Notices were issued against all three individuals. The failure to satisfy those Notices led to the issue of separate Creditors Petitions to each debtor which is the issue in these proceedings. Hearings of the Creditor’s Petitions were heard concurrently and I also delivered/deliver a judgment in relation to Hans Peter and Jillian May Mollinger (Provident Capital Ltd v Mollinger & Anor [2009] FMCA 525) and this separate judgment in respect of Beau Joshua Mollinger.
A Notice Stating Grounds of Opposition to the Petition was filed on 8 July 2008. The hearing of the Creditor’s Petition…
Continue reading Provident Capital Ltd v Mollinger
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Provident Capital Ltd v Mollinger [2009] FMCA 536
- Case
- [2009] FMCA 536
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether post-judgment payments should reduce the interest claimed by Provident Capital. It examined relevant statutory provisions and case law to understand the principles governing interest calculations in such contexts. The court concluded that the interest must be calculated based on the original amount of the judgment debt, without considering subsequent payments made by the debtor. This approach ensures that the creditor receives the full interest accruing up to the judgment date, regardless of any post-judgment payments.
Based on its reasoning, the court ordered that the parties prepare written submissions on the correct method for calculating interest on the judgment debt. It required the submissions to be supported by relevant authorities. The court instructed that the submissions should address whether payments or credits made after the judgment date should be deducted from the interest claimed. This order aimed to clarify the legal framework and ensure that both parties understood their obligations concerning the interest calculation.
The court's final orders mandated that the parties submit written arguments on the interest calculation issue, supported by authorities. This approach allowed the court to gain a comprehensive understanding of the legal arguments and make an informed decision on the matter.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The parties are to prepare written submissions, supported by authorities, clarifying the calculation of interest claimed on the judgment debt when subsequent repayments are made after the date of judgment or orders.
2.
The parties’ submissions are to address whether these payments or credits should be taken into account in the calculation of interest.
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.