Re Miller, D.E.E v Ex Parte Bondi Securities P/L

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTWIA )
GENERAL DIVISION )
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE

) NP 1603 of 1992
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES )

RE: DORIS EMILY ELIZABETH MILLER

Debtor

EX PARTE: BOND1 SECURITIES PTY LIMITED
Creditor

CORAM: Burchett J.
PLACE: Sydney

DATE : 23 March 1993

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J.:

This matter is apparently ready to be dealt with as a bankruptcy petition in which no notice of objection has been filed. It has in fact been before the court since last October, the bankruptcy notice having been served pursuant to an order for substituted service some time before that, and the petition also served pursuant to an order for substituted service. The debtor has not filed any notice of objection, although apparently legally represented for some time, nor has any affidavit been filed in defence of the petition.

been the subject of dispute in the proceedings which led to accounting records, related to matters which appear to have
the Supreme Court judgment upon which the bankruptcy notice is founded, a judgment for a sum of the order of a quarter of a million dollars. The debtor does assert, and there is some evidence to support the proposition, that some transactions have taken place since that judgment, but there is nothing to demonstrate to me that there is anything suspicious about those transactions or any reason why an order for discovery should be made at a stage when there has not even been an issue raised by a notice of objection, nor has there been any demonstration of the supportability of any such issue by any affidavit. In fact, the transactions subsequent to the judgment are evidenced by correspondence emanating from the petitioning creditor's solicitors, who have stated with what appears to be frankness the position in that regard.
I am not satisfied that there is any ground on which an adjournment should be granted in this matter, and I am certainly not satisfied that there is any basis for making an order for discovery in this matter, in the circumstances.

Accordingly, the application for adjournment is rejected, and I refer the matter back to the registrar.

Nevertheless, and quite recently, the solicitor for the
debtor has sought discovery of detailed financial and

1: certify that this and the preceding page are a
true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his
Honour M r Justice Burchett.

associate: h&s(s-JL
Date: 10 June 1993

Solicitor for the Debtor: Mr M. English of
Messrs Verekers
Counsel for the Creditor: M r S. Motbey with Mr
Young
Solicitors for the Creditor: Messrs Lyons & Lyons
Date of hearing: 23 March 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, General Division, in the Bankruptcy District of the State of New South Wales, a matter concerning Doris Emily Elizabeth Miller, the debtor, and Bondi Securities Pty Limited, the creditor, was heard. Bondi Securities, represented by counsel and solicitors, filed a bankruptcy petition against Miller, who had not filed any notice of objection nor affidavit in defence of the petition. The petition was founded on a Supreme Court judgment against Miller for a substantial sum, and Bondi Securities sought an adjournment and orders for discovery.

The legal issues before the court were whether the matter should be adjourned and whether orders for discovery should be made, given the absence of objections from the debtor and the lack of any evidence suggesting suspicious transactions post-judgment. The court considered the principles of fairness and the absence of any demonstrated need for discovery at this stage.

Justice Burchett found that there were no grounds for an adjournment, nor was there a basis for making an order for discovery. The court rejected the application for adjournment and referred the matter back to the registrar, noting that the debtor had not provided any evidence to support a need for discovery at this preliminary stage. The creditor's solicitors had openly disclosed the transactions that had occurred post-judgment, which did not appear suspicious.

The court's final orders were to reject the application for adjournment and to refer the matter back to the registrar, with no orders for discovery being made at this stage.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

associate:	*h&s(s-JL*
Date: 10 June 1993
Solicitor for the Debtor:	Mr M. English of Messrs Verekers
Counsel for the Creditor:	*M r* S. Motbey with Mr
Young
Solicitors for the Creditor:	Messrs Lyons & Lyons
Date of hearing:	23 March 1993