Re Eleftheria Flemetakis Ex Parte Eleftheria Flemetakis

[1977] FCA 12

. .

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF

BAhXHUPTCY. BAKXRLTTCY DISTRICT N.S.W. 164 of 1974

OF THE STATE OF NZ'# SOUTH iYALI3S

AbD THE AUSTRSIAN CAFITAL TERRITORY

I N EIE MATTER OF BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - 1974

Re : EUFWERIA FLXLT3TAKIS

ELEFTHXRIA FUhXTAKIS

E x p a r t e :

,

I JUDGEMENT

JUDGE: B.B. R i l e y

! DATE OF JUDGEhENT: 15 th Ifmch, 1977

- -

l DATES OF HEARING: 10th December, 1976

1 13th December, 1976

21s t Feb rua ry , 1977

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONING B. c .nl. Wall

l CMDITOR:

i INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS: Roland E. G r i d i g e r . CO

99 E l i z a b e t h S t r e e t , Sydney

1

COUNSEL FOR BA hxRmT : P. Urquhart

1 INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS: David G. P u l l i n g e r . CO

156 Cabramatta Road, Cabrana t ta

I	OFFICIAL RECEIVER:	R.B. Wllson
l	l
1	,

I

Bankruptcy A c t , 1 9 6 6 .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF BANKRUPTCY )

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF ) No. 1 6 4 o f 1 9 7 4

NEW SOUTH WALES A N D H E AUSTRALIAN )

CAPITAL TERRITORY 1

I n t h e m a t t e r of -

Bankruptcy A c t 1966-1975

R e : ELEFTHERIA FLEMETAKIS

Ex	p a r t e :	ELEFTHERIA	FLEMETAKIS
-

REASONS FOR JUDGMZNT

R i l ey J.

15 March 1 9 7 7

The a p p l i c a t i o n s made by t h i s b c n k r u p t were heard

toge the r w i th , and t o t h e same ex ten t as , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s made

by he r husband E le f the r ious F leme tak i s , as t o which I have j u s t

given judgment.

The only essent ia l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two cases i s

t h a t Mrs. F l e m e t a k i s h a s r a i s e d t h e a d d i t i o n a l con ten t ion t h a t

s h e h e r s e l f d i d n o t agree w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r t o b e

l i ab le f o r any work done by him o r mater ia l s provided by h im.

That con ten t ion , i n my o p i n i o n , f a i l s on the ev idence . I am

s a t i s f i e d t h a t h e r h u s b a n d was ac t ing throughout on beha l f of bo th

h imse l f and h i s wife , and indeed she herse l f took a p a r t , t k a u g h

no t a very active p a r t ,	i n the concluding	of	t h e agreement w i t h
t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r .

I n t h i s case, as i n t he husband ' s , I o r d e r t h a t t h e

amount of t h e a d m i t t e d d e b t o f t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r be

reduced by $ 1 2 0 , ani o rde r t he bankrup t t o p a y t h e p e t i t i o n i n g

c r e d i t o r ' s costs of t h e a p p l i c a t i c n t o d a t e , i n c l u d i n g r e s e r v e d

costs. I s h e l l h e a r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n for annulment on a d a t e

suitable t o counsel. and t h e Court .