Re Bourke, M.V.

JUDGMEM No. 8 6s:. .... l ..%$,,
r

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTWIA 1
1
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT 1
)
OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES )
RE: MICHAEL VINCENT BOURKE

No. NP 1584 of 1991
EX PARTE BENEFICIAL FINANCE CORPORATION

LIMITED

STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES

RE: TERENCE MARCELLIN BOURKE

No. NP 1585 of 1991
EX PARTE BENEFICIAL FINANCE CORPORATION
LIMITED

PINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDERS Morling, J

THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
No. NP 1584 of 1991
1. A Sequestration Order be made against the estate of the Debtor.
2. The petitioning creditor's costs, including reserved costs, be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

No. P.1585 of 1991
1. A Sequestration Order be made against the estate of the Debtor.
2. The petitioning creditor's costs, including reserved costs, be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with
by Order 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.

J N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1
)
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT )
1
OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES )
RE: MICHAEL VINCENT BOUFXE

No. NP 1584 of 1991
EX PARTE BENEFICIAL FINANCE CORPORATION

,LIMITED

STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES

RE: TERENCE MARCELLIN BOURXE

No. NP 1585 of 1991
EX PARTE BENEFICIAL FINANCE CORPORATION
LIMITED
........ ........ ........ .....

Morling J 14 February 1992
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(

Notwithstanding what has been put to me by Mr
Bourke, I do not think I should further adjourn the hearing

of these petitions.

In effect, Mr Bourke has submitted that he and his
brother should not have had judgment entered against them in
the Supreme Court. That judgment was entered nearly five

years ago.

No steps have been made to have it set aside,

or to appeal against it.

Mr Bourke has informed me from the bar table that

neither he nor his brother have any assets to meet the
balance due under the judgment.

Even if the application for legal aid succeeds, I do not think there is any realistic prospect that either he or his brother could successfully oppose the making of sequestration orders.

In each case I am satisfied that the petitioning creditor has proved all necessary matters to warrant the making of a sequestration order. Accordingly in each case I make a sequestration order against the estate of the debtor and I order that the petitioning creditor's costs, including reserved costs, be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

I certify that this and the precedrng page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herern of Hie Honour Mr Justrce T.R. Morling.

Associate: L! v J -c +S ../ u<

Date: 14 February 1992

The Applicant Michael Vincent Bourke
appeared in person on behalf of
himself and Terence Marcellin Bourke

Counsel for first respondent: Mr T.s. Hale

instructed by Bruce & Stewart Turton

The matter before the Federal Court of Australia, Bankruptcy District of New South Wales, involved two debtors, Michael Vincent Bourke and Terence Marcellin Bourke, and was heard ex parte by Beneficial Finance Corporation Limited and State Bank of New South Wales. The creditors petitioned for sequestration orders against the debtors' estates due to unpaid debts, with the applications consolidated for hearing.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the petitioning creditors had sufficiently demonstrated all necessary matters to warrant the making of sequestration orders against the debtors' estates. The debtors argued that the underlying judgments against them in the Supreme Court were unjust and that they had no assets to meet the balances due. However, the debtors had not sought to appeal or set aside these judgments, which had stood for nearly five years. The court needed to determine if the creditors' petitions met the criteria for sequestration and if the debtors had any realistic prospect of opposing the orders.

Morling J concluded that the petitioning creditors had proven all necessary matters for the making of sequestration orders. The debtors had not presented a viable defense or shown any assets to satisfy the debts. The judge noted that even if the debtors were to receive legal aid, there was no realistic prospect of successfully opposing the sequestration orders. Therefore, the court made sequestration orders against the estates of both Michael Vincent Bourke and Terence Marcellin Bourke and ordered that the petitioning creditors' costs, including reserved costs, be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTWIA	1
1
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT	1
)
OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES	)

J N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
)
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT	)
1
OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES	)