Re Sabri, R. Ex parte Equus Financial Services Ltd v Sabri, R.

[1993] FCA 904

904 , 9 3

JUDGMENT NO. ....oo..mooe..aano oooemoOooooe

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) BANKRUPTCY DIVISION )

Re: RHONDA SABRI

A Debtor

EX parte : EQUUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

Applicant

RHONDA SABRI

First Respondent

TIM ARTHUR JONAS

Second Respondent

Coram:	Olney J
Place :	Melbourne
Date:	30 November 1993

13 DEC 1993

FEDERAL COURT OF

MINUTE OF ORDER	AUSTRALIA
PRINCIPAL REDISTRY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application be dismissed.

2.    The applicant pay the costs of the debtor to be taxed as one bill with the costs ordered in VX 497

NOTE :	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in rule
124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.

3.   The applicant pay the costs of the trustee to be taxed as one bill with the costs ordered in VX 497

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) BANKRUPTCY DIVISION 1

A series of concurrent meetings of the creditors of the debtor	and her husband took place between 11 December 1992 and 6
April 1993. On the latter date speclal resolutions were passed by the creditors requiring each to enter into a deed of arrangement in accordance with proposals made pursuant to S
188(2). Separate deeds of arrangement were signed on 20
pursuant to those deeds was recelved by the trustee. April 1993 and subsequently the money required to be paid her husband fulfilled the various functions of controlling trustee, chairman of the creditors' meetings and trustee of the deed of arrangement.
In his capacity as chairman of the meeting of the creditors of the debtor on 6 April 1993 the second respondent refused to allow the applicant, which claimed to be a creditor entitled to vote at the meetlng, the right to vote for all but a small part of the sum clalmed. The applicant now seeks to have the deed of arrangement declared void. Similar proceedings have been taken in relation to the deed executed by the debtor's husband and in proceedings VX497 of 1992 I have published contemporaneously wlth these reasons, my reasons for dismissing that application.
Although there was some slight variation in the value of the liabilities of the debtor and her husband the differences were small and of insufficient moment to enable any distinction to
be made between the two matters.
For the most part the debtor was a lolnt debtor with her husband. She was a joint party to the several agreements relied upon by the applicant as the basis of its claim to vote as a creditor in respect of the amount for which it was not permitted to vote. She was one of the parties to the settlement of the Supreme Court proceedings referred to in the reasons in application VX497 of 1992. Apart from the
calculations of percentages which appear in those reasons, the only difference between the two cases is that the amount for which the applicant was permitted to vote at the meeting of 6 April 1993 was a liability due by the debtor's husband and not by her. In the debtor's case there was no liability in respect of which the applicant was admitted to vote. Nor had there been any bankruptcy petition presented against the debtor as was the case with her husband.
None of these slight differences has any bearing upon the outcome of these proceedings. The findlngs and conclusions expressed in the other proceeding are equally applicable here and I adopt same wlthout repeating them.
The application will be dismissed.

Re: RHONDA SABRI

A Debtor

EX parte : EQUUS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

Applicant

RHONDA SABRI

First Respondent

TIM ARTHUR JONAS

Second Respondent

Coram:	Olney J
Place :	Melbourne
Date:	30 November 1993

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 8 November 1992 the debtor and her husband James Lyfti Sabri each signed authorities pursuant to s 188(1) of the Bankruptcy Act authorising the second respondent to call meetings of their respective creditors and to take over the control of their property.

I certify that this and the

preceding 2 pages are a
true copy of the reasons
for judgment of the

Honourable Mr Justice Olney

Associate: llxk+$iGpy\r*nz U

Date : 30-

Heard :	27 and 28 September 1993, 1 October 1993
Place:	Melbourne
Judgment :	30 November 1993
Appearances -
Counsel for the applicant:	Mr W.T. Houghton
Solicitors for the applicant:	Gadens Rldgeway
Counsel for the first respondent:	MS 3. Davies
Solicitors for the flrst respondent:	D.E. Phillips
Counsel for the secod respondent:	Mr S.P. Gardiner
Solicitors for the second respondent:	Cornwall Stodart