Sarina v O'Shannassy (No 2)

In *Sarina v O'Shannassy (No 2)*, Manousaridis J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered the validity of a bankruptcy notice issued by Mr O’Shannassy and served on Mr Sarina. The dispute centred on the address specified for the creditor on the bankruptcy notice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a bankruptcy notice that specifies a post office box as the creditor's address is valid, and if not, whether such a defect could be cured by amendment under the relevant provisions of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth).

Manousaridis J, applying the principles established in *Metledge*, concluded that the *Bankruptcy Act* mandates that a creditor's address on a bankruptcy notice must not be a post office box. This requirement was held to be essential to the validity of the notice. Consequently, the bankruptcy notice issued in this case, which specified a post office box, was deemed invalid and not a notice under the Act. The court found that this defect was not a formal defect or irregularity that could be amended under section 31(1)(b) or section 306 of the Act.

Accordingly, the court ordered that Mr O’Shannassy’s interim application be dismissed and that the bankruptcy notice be set aside. The court also ordered that Mr O’Shannassy pay Mr Sarina’s costs, with liberty to apply within 14 days to vary or discharge the costs order.