JUDGMENT No. ........ ........ .. ........ .., 10s I
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
' IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
GENERAL DIVISION ) No. VB 2861 of 1992 BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE ) STATE OF VICTORIA 1
RE: GWENDOLINE MARY CLARK LARKIN
A Bankrupt
EX PARTE: GWENDOLINE MARY CLARK LARKIN
Applicant
MICHAEL RICKARDS
Respondent
JUDGE : Gray J. PLACE : Melbourne
15 APR 1993
DATE : 24th March 1993
AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
subsists.
It is clear to me from the evidence that there is nothing new being agitated today. All of the issues that have come to the surface have come to the surface previously. The sequestration order, of which annulment was sought, was based on a final judgment of a Magistrate's Court. That judgment subsisted at the time of the sequestration order and still
It seems to me that the sequestration order was perfectly properly made. I am therefore not satisfied that it ought not to have been made. It follows that I must dismiss the application for annulment.
[After further argument on the questlon of costs:]
I have not glven any judgment in the absence of the
bankrupt. I have heard her and I have declded agalnst her on
the merlts. She wlll not accept the fact that she is on the losing side in this controversy. She has brought people to court, she has lost, and therefore she should pay costs.
The order that I make wlll be as follows:
1. The application filed on 19th October 1992 by the bankrupt, seeklng annulment of the sequestration order against her, 1s dismissed.
2. The bankrupt pay the costs of Michael Rlckards of the
appllcation, including reserved costs.
C o u n s e l Tor cnc dppi 1 - c a n t .
1~1t i g a n r I!] p e r s o n
sol^ c l L o r f o r t h e a y . ~ r , l ~ c d n t :
Ccunse.1 f o r r . ! ~ c c s p u n t l e n t . F l r P . U o r n s L e l n
S o l 1 c I L o r s f u r t h e r c s l ) o n d c n r . I!lc:>del K i c k d r d s
Cou~~r;=. l . :oz 'I'rus coo : l i r C C a r r c l l
S o l i c:to1:5 io? Ti-11s LC?. hus t r a ? 1211 G o v e r n r i c n t S o l l c1 to,:
T cerL~fy t l i i : ~ . this a n d Lhe : j r c c e c I ~ n g t;"o ( 3 ) p ? q c s a r e - L
. L . - : , coi.>\c of t h e ledso!;s
1.01- ju<Jqn!erii o f h i s h ' o n o ~ i r
: ; 1 ; J U 5 :. l C'C G!:ay
- AGLC
- Re Larkin, G.M.C Ex parte Larkin, G.M.C v Rickards, M [1993] FCA 205
- Case
- [1993] FCA 205
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the sequestration order was properly made and if there were grounds for its annulment. The court examined the evidence presented and the previous judgments that formed the basis of the sequestration order. The court found that the sequestration order was based on a final judgment from a Magistrate's Court which was still valid at the time of the sequestration order. The court held that there were no new issues presented that had not been previously considered.
The court concluded that the sequestration order was properly made and there were no grounds for its annulment. The judge dismissed the application for annulment and ruled that the bankrupt should pay the costs of the application, including reserved costs. The decision was based on the fact that the bankrupt had lost the case and had brought people to court unnecessarily.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.