Re Kevin Graeme Blake Ex Parte Kebroc Home Developments Pty Ltd - [1980] FCA 208

Bankruptcy

compositlon under Parr;

C h a i r m a n ' s C e r t i f l c a t e

conc lus lve

( s .204 )

m a t e r l a 1 p a r t i c u l a r s o m i t t e d

f r o m

r l e l t o r ' s

staterrent of a f f a ~ r s

i n i n t e r c s t s of

c r e d i t o r s

t o d e c l a r e

compositlon vold

(S. 222(5)) - so dcclarcd.

K E V I N GRAEME BLAKE

(Debtor)

ex p a r t e

KEBROC HOME DEVELOPYCNTS PTY. LTD.

( I N LIQUIDATION)

and

C I T l C O R P

AUSTPALIA LIMITED

(Appl icants )

and

K E V I N GRAEME BLAKE

and VICTOR

RAYMOND DYE

(Respszdznts ) .

C. A. Swceney, Z.

22nd

May,

1 9 8 0 .

No. 219 of 1 9 7 9 Part S

Debtor

Ex parte : KEBROC IIOMC DEVCLGPIWKTS

PTY. LTD. (in liquldation)

and CITICORP AUSTRALIA

LlNITED

Applicants

and

KEVIN GRAElilE BLAliE and

VICTOR PdIYMOND DYE

Rcspondents.

REASONS FOR JUDGXENT

C. A, SWEENEY J.

2 2 May

1 9 8 0

In this application, the following

orclcrs are

“l.

That the Court declare the composition made

by the

abovenamed debtor on the 12th day	of	October, 1 9 7 9
void on the grounds :

that the said composltlon

1 s not a

composltion withln the meanlng

of the

definltion contalned In s . 1 8 7

of the

Act;

that the resolution acceptlng the

compositlon was not passed

by the

requisite ma~ority

in value;

that the resolutlon acccptlng the

composition was not passed	by a
majorlty in number;

that the respondent Dye as Chairman

the meeting

W A S wror,g 111 dlsallowlng

the vote of the appllcant Kebroc

Honlf

Developments Pty. Ltd. (In Llquldatlon);

that the respondent Dye as Chairman of the rneetinq was wrong in dlsallowlng the votes of the Appllcant Citlcorp Australia

Llmitcd and that	o f Ford Credlt Australia
Limited:

2 .

t h a t t h e m e e t i n g a t w h l c h

t h e

composltion

r e f e r r e d t o

was

n o t

advertised

a l t e r n a t i v e l y a n y a d v e r t l s c m c n t s

were

n o t

lodqed wlthln	t h e	t l m e s p e c i f l e d	by	t h e
r u l e s ;

t h a t

t h e d c t k…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Kevin Graeme Blake Ex Parte Kebroc Home Developments Pty... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1980] FCA 208
Decision Date: 22 May 1980

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Kevin Graeme Blake Ex Parte Kebroc Home Developments Pty Ltd, the court was tasked with determining the validity of a composition agreement between a debtor and his creditors. The applicants, Kebroc Home Developments Pty Ltd and Citicorp Australia Limited, sought to have the composition declared void on several grounds. The court found that the composition was not valid due to several reasons, including the debtor's failure to include material particulars in his statement of affairs, the improper disallowance of votes by the chairman of the creditors' meeting, and the lack of compliance with the required advertising of the meeting.

The court found that the composition did not meet the definition of a composition under the Bankruptcy Act 1966, as it did not include the words "in full satisfaction of the debts due to them." Additionally, the court found that the chairman of the creditors' meeting made errors in disallowing the votes of certain creditors, which could have affected the outcome of the vote on the composition. The court also found that the debtor omitted material particulars from his statement of affairs, which was a fundamental requirement for the creditors' consideration at the meeting.

Ultimately, the court found that it would be in the best interests of the creditors to declare the composition void, as it would allow for a more accurate assessment of the debtor's financial situation and potentially lead to a more favourable outcome for the creditors. The court declared the composition void and ordered the costs of the application to be paid by the respondents.

Orders