Re William Ian Westerman

[1991] FCA 885

JUDGMENT No. mg./ .Q!_;

IN THE FEDE-	COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
GENERAL DIVISION	)
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF OUEENSLAND

No. QP 2652 of 1991

RE:	WILLIAM IAN AND MARGARET SUSAN WESTERM-AN
EX PARTE:	BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

No. QP 2706 of 1991

RE :	WILLIAM IAN AND MARGARET SUSAN WESTERMAN
EX PARTE:	WILLIAM IAN AND MARGARET SUSAN WESTERMAN

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER:	27 NOVEMBER 1991
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1.    The debtors' petition be accepted.

2.   Costs of and incidental to the creditor's petition incurred to date be given the priority which the petitioning creditor's costs are accorded under

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

s.l09(l)(a) of the Bankru~tcv Act 1966.

IN THE FEDE R h COURT OF AUSTRALA )

GENERAL DIVIS_I,m	1
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF STATE OF OUEENSLAND

No. QP 2652 of 1991

RE:	WILLIAM IAN AND MARGARET SUSAN WESTERMAN
EX PARTE:	BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

No. QP 2706 of 1991

RE :	WILLIAM IAN-AND MARGARET SUSAN WESTERMAN
EX PARTE: -	WILLIAM IAN AND MARGARET SUSAN WESTERMAN

CORAM! PINCUS J.

PLACE :  BRISBANE

U: 27 NOVEMBER 1991

-- EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, a debtors' petition was presented on

28 October 1991 and was not accepted because of the provision

of s.57(3A) of the bankrupt^^ Act 1966 ("the Act") which reads

as follows:

presented under this section, a creditor's	"Where, at the time when a debtor's petition is
petitton is pending against any of the debtors (whether alone or jointly with another person), or against a partnershjp of which any of the debtors is a me~nher, the Registrar must refer the debtor's peLil.jon to the Court for a directlon to accept or reject it".

The Registrar acted under that provision because there had already been presented a creditor's petition on 21 October 1991. The course which was then taken was that the

hearing of the creditor's petition was adjourned to today as well as the referral of the question whether the debtors' petition should be accepted or rejected. The Court has a discretion under this provision. Miss Lake has appeared for the petitioning creditor and says candidly that it makes little difference to the petitioning creditor which course the Court follows.

It seems to me, having spoken to Mr Westerman, who has explained the reasons for the debtors' present trouble, that the debtorsr petition should simply be accepted. I therefore will direct that the debtors' petition be accepted and the costs of and incidental to the creditor's petition incurred to date be given the priority which a petitioning creditor's costs are accorded under s.l09(l)(a) of the Act.

I certify that this and the

preceding page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of his Honour Mr Justice Pincus

Associate

Date 2-;F h l w e t ~ b e ~ ln\qr