Re Balhorn, Sydney Gordon Ex Parte Balhorn, Sydney Gordon

1 NO.

326 of 1 9 7 3

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT ‘OF ‘THE

STATE

O F VI.CTORIA

RE :

SYDNEY GORDON, BALHORN

EX PARTE:

SYDNEY GORDON, BALHORN, and

THE .OFFICIAL

‘I’.RUS,TEE I N

BANKRUPTCY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART ‘J .

8 FEBRUARY 1982

HIS HONOUR:

I n t h i s

matter I gave

judgment

on 2 1 October

1981

and

made

orders

inc luding an order d i smiss ing an appl ica t ion of

Sydney

Gordon

Balhorn

June

1981.

o rde red

tha t

t he

r e l e v a n t o r d e r s s h o u l d n o t o p e r a t e u n t i l t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f

2 1

days

f rom the da t e o f f i l i ng an a f f idav i t o f s e rv i ce

upon

M r .

Balhorn

personal ly of

s ea l ed copy of

the orders then

made

and a

copy

my reasons

for

judgment .

o rde red

tha t

i f , i n t h e

meantime, M r .

Balhorn

f i l e d

a n a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h i n t h e V i c t o r i a n R e g i s t r y o f t h i s

Court

t o r e s c i n d o r

set

aside any of

o rde r s , t hen the o rde r s

which he sought

t o

set

a s ide shou ld no t ope ra t e un t i l fu r the r

order

the Court

M r .

Balhorn

i n f a c t f i l e d

document headed “Application

30 October 1981”,

i n which he appears

t o take

i s s u e w i t h

t h e

orders

t h a t

made

e a r l i e r

and which

for the purpose so le ly of

t o d a y ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n

s h a l l t reat

f a l l i n g w i t h i n

t h e ambit

order 5 of

the orders

made

by m e on 30 October l a s t ;

b u t n o t

so as

bind any Judge

who

may

hear

M r .

Ba lho rn ’ s app l i ca t ion to

cha rac t e r i ze tha t app l i ca t ion a s one

which

f a l l s

wi th in o rde r

-3-

on Monday 1 March 1982 a t 10.15 a . m .

2 .

The

O f f i c i a l T r u s t e e

i n

Bankruptcy

f i l e any n o t i c e

i n t e n t i o n t o

oppose the appl icat ion

before Thursday

11 February 1982.

3 .

M r .

Balhosn

f i l e and

serve

on o r b e f o r e

February

1982

any

a f f i d a v i t s

on which he proposes

t o

r e l y i n s u p p o r t o f h i s a p p l i c a t i o n

and

t h a t

s e rv i ce the reo f be e f f ec t ed

leaving

copy of

t h e same a t t h e o f f i c e

of Messrs.

Stonyman &

Crouch,

S o l i c i t o r s of

118 Queen Street, Melbourne.

T h e

Of f i c i a l T rus t ee

in Bankrup tcy e f f ec t

s e rv i ce

s ea l ed cop ie s o f t h i s o rde r

and copies

any

n o t i c e of

i n t e n t i o n t o oppose M r .

Balhorn's

a p p l i c a t i o n

o r be fo re F r iday

1 2 February

1 9 8 2

and again

on Tuesday 16 February 1982 o r Wednesday

17 February 1 9 8 2 by

leaving same

i n an envelope

addres sed to

M r .

.Balhorn a t 52/3

Alfred Square,

S t .

Ki lda ,

V ic to r i a and THE COURT DIRECTS THAT

i f

such

documents

a r e l e f t i n

p o s t a l r e c e p t a c l e

f o r t h e s a i d a d d r e s s s e r v i c e t h e r e o f s h a l l b e s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h e p u r p o s e of t h i s o r d e r .

The

O f f i c i a l T r u s t e e

i n B a n k r u p t c y

f i l e

and

s e r v e

any

a f f i d a v i t i n r e p l y

and any

o t h e r material

upon

which it proposes

t o r e l y on o r b e f o r e

February

1 9 8 2

i n t h e

manner

se t

fo r th in pa rag raph

4 .

hereof

save

that

s u c h a f f i d a v i t

o ther mater ia l need

o n l y

served

once.

. / 4

In the matter of Sydney Gordon Balhorn, the applicant sought to contest an earlier decision made by Lockhart J. The case was heard in the Bankruptcy District Court of the State of Victoria. The central issue before the court was the applicant's attempt to challenge specific orders made by the court on 21 October 1981, which included dismissing an application filed by Balhorn on 9 June 1981. Lockhart J provided detailed reasons for the dismissal, and Balhorn subsequently filed an application on 30 October 1981, which was considered within the scope of an earlier order. The court was required to decide whether Balhorn's application was valid and whether the orders made on 21 October 1981 should stand.

Lockhart J examined Balhorn's application and noted that it contested the orders made previously. The court clarified that while the application could be considered within the ambit of the earlier order, it did not bind any subsequent judge in determining the nature of Balhorn's application. The court directed that the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy must file and serve any notice of intention to oppose Balhorn's application by a specified date, and that Balhorn must file and serve any affidavits in support of his application by another specified date. Lockhart J also outlined the procedures for serving the court orders and any notices of opposition to Balhorn's application. The Official Trustee was instructed to serve any affidavits or other materials in reply to Balhorn's application by a further specified date.

The court issued orders to manage the procedural aspects of Balhorn's application, ensuring that all necessary documents were served in accordance with the court's directions. The orders aimed to provide clarity and ensure that the application process adhered to the established timelines and procedures. Lockhart J made it clear that service of documents through a postal receptacle at Balhorn's specified address would be considered sufficient for the purposes of the order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established