Re Seipel, C. & B. v Ex Parte Hopgood & Ganim (a firm)

[1989] FCA 305

JUDGMENT No. .S.o.k!.-S%,,

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1 QLD P255 of 1989
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN 1 DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND )

RE:  CLAUS SEIPEL and BETH SEIPEL

Judgment Debtors

EX PARTE:  HOPGOOD M D GANIM (a firm)

Judgment Creditors

MINUTES OF ORDER

FEd -

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	PINCUS J .
DATE OF ORDER:	13 JUNE 1989  L
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT:

1. finds the acts of bankruptcy alleged in the creditor's petition as amended, which was filed on 22 May 1989;

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

2.    finds the other matters necessary to found a sequestration order;

3.    makes a sequestration order against the estates of the judgment debtors, Mr and Mrs Seipel;

4.   orders that the costs of and incidental to the petition be taxed and paid as petitioning creditor's costs in accordance with the Act with the exception of the costs associated with the first erroneous petition filed on 13 March 1989.

!

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
GENERAL DIVISION	1 QLD P255 of 1989
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND )

RE:  CLAUS SEIPEL and BETH SEIPEL

Judgment Debtors

EX PARTE:  HOPGOOD AND GANIM (a firm)

Judgment Creditor

PINCUS J. 13 JUNE 1989

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, the Court has received a faxed notice of intention to oppose the petition, which has with it a document asking that this Court give Wr and Mrs Seipel leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Queensland to have the judgment against them

Queensland, but that Court may entertain applications to set its	in that Court . set aside. jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of The Federal Court does not have	judgments aside.
It seems to me likely that what the Seipels meant was that they wished to have time to file an application in the Supreme Court of Queensland to have a certain judgment set aside. The judgment, however, was given over a year ago. It is apparent that the Seipels have known of it for some considerable time; if

by no other means, they should have known of it when they were
served with the bankruptcy notice, last year.

The Seipels also say that, because they have not got enough money to come, they want to be forgiven for not being personally in Court. I gather that they mean that I should determine the matter as best I can in their absence.

It is, as it seems to me, not practicable to go behind the judgment :;r the material which has been presented, and the

question really is whether I should adjnrrrn +he hearing of the petition further. I have come to the conclusion that I should not do so. The judgment debtors have had over a year to make an application to the Supreme Court, and the proceedings in this Court were, in a sense, instituted in October last year when the application for an issue of the bankruptcy notice was filed. The bankruptcy notice was served on Hrs Seipel on 2 November 1988, and on Mr Seipel on 3 November 1988.

must refuse the faxed application, which I treat as one for an Not without some hesitation, I have concluded that I adjournment, and I think I have to make a sequestration order. I find the acts of bankruptcy alleged in the creditor's petition, as amended, which was filed on 22 May 1989. I find the other matters necessary to found a sequestration order.

I order that the costs of and incidental to the petition be taxed and paid as petitioning creditor's costs in accordance with the Act, with the exception of the costs associated with the first, erroneous, petition which was filed on 13 Harch 1989. I make a sequestration order in respect of the estates of the judgment debtors, Hr and Hrs Seipel.

1 cortify that thin and the two pr.codlnq pag.m	are
true copy of the r..sone	for

Him HonDur H r . Jumtic. Pincun.