Re Harper, T.W. & Anor Ex parte Petersville Industries Ltd

Case

[1991] FCA 232

16 Apr 1991

No judgment structure available for this case.

JUDGMENT No. . 232 / K.".. t

NOT SUITABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

GENERAL DIVISION 1
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE
) NP 2956 of 1990
OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND THE )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY 1
RE:  TERENCE WILLIAM HARPER and HAROLD
JOHN FRANCIS
EX PARTE:  PETERSVILLE INDUSTRIES

CORAM: Burchett J.
PLACE: Sydney

DATE : 16 April 1991 RECEIVED
- 3 M A Y 1991 j
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FEDERALCOURTOF i AUSTRALIA i
I r
PRINCIPAL
REGISTRY ,P' /

/ /

BURCHETT J.:  . ' ,

In this matter, the petition is defended on a quite specific and rather technical basis. It is pointed out that the initiating proceedings in the District Court may not have been as precise as they could have been as to whether the debt alleged against three debtors was joint, or joint and several. It seems to me that there was in fact a judgment which was plainly joint and several, and it is not suggested positively on behalf of the debtors that there was anything wrong with that, but only negatively that the position was not clarified in the initiating process. The bankruptcy notice was addressed to all three of the joint and several judgment debtors, and the bankruptcy notice is not said to have been

invalid. There was no payment at all under it.

What is attacked is the creditor's petition, but it was conceded in the course of argument that it could not be said that there should not be any sequestration order, but rather that the argument was that the form of the petition created difficulties as to the form of the sequestration order which might be made under it against the two debtors against whom the petitioning creditor has proceeded. It seems to me that the petition suggests that each debtor is liable for the whole amount, and the argument that there is a suggestion that each could be liable for but one third of the total amount is an argument I simply do not accept. In my opinion, no one reading the documents sensibly would be misled into that view. The clear indication is that a joint and several liability was asserted, and that is consistent with the judgment. It is also, as has already been said, consistent with the bankruptcy notice.

My attention was drawn to a number of minor formal

defects, and I have allowed a number of amendments. As to all

circumstances, it is appropriate that I should make a of them, I am quite satisfied that S. 306 applies. In those

sequestration order against each of the debtors. I am satisfied that each of the debtors has committed the act of bankruptcy alleged in the petition as amended. I am satisfied with the proof of the other matters of which s . 52(1) of the Act requires proof.

I make a sequestration order against the estate of each of the debtors. I order that costs, including any reserved costs, be taxed and paid according to the Act, and I direct that a draft of this order be delivered to the Registrar within seven days in accordance with rule 124(2).

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr Justice Burchett.

/

-g?%+- ~skciate

Dated: 16 April 1991

', '
. ,,
, I - . , ' I
7 , . ,
I A
t,?', J :. 6
I , , ,:
; : I , , L , , . ,
?.. :: L. "

.',.' .'

$c -. '2,, ,,: ,' .I

'CR.' ,I

Q. .T ; < ,
,, ,.:  , -'
a&.!: ,I. ;,.,, , r . ,

,

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0