Re Capel, Elwyn John

Case [1998] FCA 372


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BANKRUPTCY - Sequestration - ability to pay debts - whether alleged ability to borrow against other causes of action makes debtor solvent - whether sufficient validity in claims - whether real claims with any likelihood of success- debtor refusing to so borrow in any event

BANKRUPTCY - Sequestration - Whether other sufficient cause to dismiss petition within meaning of s52 (2) (b) - whether claim against the creditor of sufficient validity to justify dismissal or adjournment of petition

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 52(1) & (2)
Trojan v Corporation of Hindmarsh (1987) 16 FCR 37 (Applied)
Re Stubberfield;  Ex parte Paradise Grove Pty Ltd (1995) 134 ALR 169 (Applied)
Re James;  Ex parte Carter Holt Harvey Roofing (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) (1994) 51 FCR 14(Applied)
Re Schmidt;  Ex parte Anglewood Pty Ltd (1968) 13 FLR 111 (Applied)
Re Sarina;  Ex parte Council of the Shire of Wollondilly (1980) 43 FLR 163 (Considered)
Re Kostezky;  Ex parte Milder Elfman Szmerling Krycer Pty Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 101(Applied)
Sandell v Porter (1966) 115 CLR 666 (Applied)
Cain v Whyte (1933) 48 CLR 639 (Applied)

RE ELWYN JOHN CAPEL (Debtor):  Ex parte CARAM FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED (FORMERLY CALLED MARAC FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED) ACN 000 098 402 (Creditor)
QG 7299 of 1997

FINN J
BRISBANE
9 APRIL 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 7299  of   1997

RE:

ELWYN JOHN CAPEL
DEBTOR

EX PARTE:

CARAM FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED (FORMERLY CALLED MARAC FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED)
ACN 000 098 402
CREDITOR

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 APRIL 1998

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The estate of the debtor be sequestrated.

2.The Petitioning Creditor’s costs, including any reserved costs be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

 QG 7299 of 1997

RE:

ELWYN JOHN CAPEL
DEBTOR

EX PARTE:

CARAM FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED (FORMERLY CALLED MARAC FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED)
ACN 000 098 402
CREDITOR

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

9 APRIL 1998

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The path of resistance taken by the judgment debtor, Elwyn John Capel, to the petition of Caram Finance Australia Ltd (“Caram”) for a sequestration order, can at best be described as surprising. Mr Capel has conceded that the requirements of s 52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) are satisfied.  He nonetheless contends that I should dismiss the petition under s 52(2) of the Act because “he ... is able to pay his ... debts” and/or because “for other sufficient cause a sequestration order ought not to be made”.  I should add that Mr Capel has conducted his own defence of this proceeding.

For the sake of completeness I should also add that I gave leave to Ms Heather Langston, a creditor of Mr Capel who shares accommodation and is in a relationship…

Continue reading Re Capel, Elwyn John

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Capel, Elwyn John [1998] FCA 372
Case
[1998] FCA 372
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a petition for the sequestration of the estate of Elwyn John Capel. The petitioner, a creditor, alleged that Capel was unable to pay his debts and sought his sequestration. Capel, in turn, argued that he had the ability to borrow against other causes of action, which would make him solvent, and that there was sufficient validity in those claims to justify dismissing the petition. He also contended that there was other sufficient cause to dismiss the petition under section 52(2)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act, specifically referencing a claim against the creditor.

The court needed to determine whether Capel's alleged ability to borrow against other causes of action made him solvent, and if those claims were of sufficient validity and likelihood of success to warrant dismissal or adjournment of the petition. Additionally, the court had to assess whether there was other sufficient cause to dismiss the petition under the mentioned section of the Act.

The court found that the claims Capel intended to borrow against were not of sufficient validity or likelihood of success to support his argument against sequestration. Capel's refusal to borrow against these claims, despite their potential to make him solvent, was also noted. The court concluded that there was no other sufficient cause to dismiss the petition under section 52(2)(b). Consequently, the court ordered the sequestration of Capel's estate and directed that the petitioner's costs, including any reserved costs, be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The estate of the debtor be sequestrated.

2. The Petitioning Creditor’s costs, including any reserved costs be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

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.