Re Goldie, P.A. v Ex parte Goldie, K.M

[1994] FCA 508

S08 94

JUDGMENT NO. .-A -

1-

THg ) No. NP 475 of 1994

1

Re: - Debtor

EX parte:  -LGQZUGOLDIE

03 AUG 1994 Creditor

-

im?NEx ,l7 WAY 1994

This matter comee before the Court as a creditor's petition for the sequestration of the estate of Paul Anthony Goldie of Darling Point. A notice of intention to oppose the petition has been filed, the first item of which states that there is no act of bankruptcy as the bankruptcy notice served is invalid. The invalidity argued for is that the bankruptcy notice requires the payment of the debt to the judgment creditor. The debt arises as a result of an agreement reached in the Family Court for a property settlement which is dated 19 August 1992 pursuant to which the debtor, who is the former husband of the creditor, was required to pay some $80,000, as the agreement says, "to the wife's solicitors on her behalf".

part thereof he was to pay the balance free of interest by	instalments at the rate of $5000 each two months, with the first
payment to be made on or before 18 October 1992. The bankruptcy notice claims a series of unpaid amounts of $5000 together with interest, and requires the payment of the amount claimed, which is $20,820.83, "to the judgment creditor". It is argued on behalf of the debtor that this form is confusing and misleading because it is impossible to meet both the requirement of the bankruptcy notice and the requirement of the Family Court that the money be paid to the wife's solicitors.
In my opinion this argument has no substance at all. Neither the Family Court nor the debtor could have been under even the slightest misapprehension or confusion as to what paragraph 13.1 was providing. It was providing that the money due from the debtor to the creditor was to be paid to the wife by depositing it with her solicitors on her behalf. The concept that that is something different than paying it to her directly as apparently required by the bankruptcy notice is in my opinion completely without foundation and almost certainly fatuous.
that the payment may be secured to the satisfaction of the Furthermore the bankruptcy notice also provides, as is usual,
Federal Court or the judgment creditor or the sum may be compounded to the satisfaction of the judgment creditor. Not at all surprisingly counsel for the judgment creditor announced in Court that hi8 client would be more than satisfied with any of those possibilities. If the debtor had been in the slightest doubt about his legal position, which I do not believe for a moment he is, these alternatives were perfectly open under the
Bankruptcy Act. The payment of the money could have been secured quite simply by requesting the Court to make an order that payment of the sum to her solicitors in accordance with the Family Court order would be adequate satisfaction of the bankruptcy notice. This could also have been done without wasting the court's time by asking the solicitors for the creditor for a similar discharge of the debtor's obligations.
The first ground of opposition to the petition is dismissed.
RECORDED t NOT TRANSCRIBED
I shall allow the matter to stand on 31 May but I shall transfer
the venue from the Registrar to me at 9.30 am and add to the requirements of the Registrar on 29 April by extending the time for the filing of any affidavit as to solvency, that being the only matter left for determination, from 13 May to 24 May. I direct that there also be filed an affidavit to show cause as to why the debtor or any of his advisers should not be dealt with for contempt of the court's orders of 29 April that the affidavit
or affidavits be filed by 13 May. Costs will be reserved. I Mat th~s and the

The relevant provision of the agreement was paragraph 13.1 which also provided that if the husband fails to pay the $80,000 or any

preceding pages are a true copy ot the

Reasons for Jvdg

Justrce E~nfeld