Satchithanantham v Multilink Investments Pty Ltd

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SATCHITHANANTHAM v MULTILINK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD [2002] FMCA 84

BANKRUPTCY – Review of registrar’s decision to make a sequestration order – service of bankruptcy notice – no personal service – whether, and if so, when, the bankruptcy notice came to the attention of the debtor – whether the hearing of the creditor’s petition should be adjourned pending a special leave application to the High Court.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.41(1)(g)
Federal Court Rules
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)

Ahern v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 76 ALR 137
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1996) 134 ALR 460
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Benjamin [2000] FMCA 12

Applicant: THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM

Respondent: MULTILINK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

File No: SZ63 of 2001

Delivered on: 7 May 2002

Delivered at: Sydney

Hearing Date: 7 May 2002

Judgment of: Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Mr I Griscti

Solicitors for the Applicant: Allens Arthur Robinson

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Ash

Solicitors for the Respondent: Bush Burke & Co

ORDERS

1. The application for review of the registrar’s decision to make a sequestration order is dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of an incidental to the application, in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), as petitioner’s costs in the bankruptcy.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SZ63 of 2001

THAMBIAPPAH SATCHITHANANTHAM

Applicant

And

MULTILINK INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Mr Thambiappah Satchithanantham, who is referred to in this Court as Mr Satchi, has filed in the Court an application for review of a sequestration order made by Registrar Hedge on 22 February 2002.  The matter originally came before me on 27 March 2002 and at that time I adjourned the application for hearing today, primarily to give time for Mr Satchi to obtain legal advice and representation in pursuance of an order I made for referral under part 12 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). Mr Satchi has been able to obtain legal representation and he was ably represented today by Mr Ivan Griscti.

2. The application as pursued before me today was based on three propositions.  The first was that that bankruptcy notice which was purportedly served by the respondent creditor on Mr Satchi by fax and by ordinary post on 10 January 2001 was not properly served or alternatively, did not come to the attention of Mr Satchi prior to the filing of the creditor's petition on 20 February 2001.  The second proposition advanced was that that creditor's petition was not served properly on Mr Satchi because it was served in the precincts of a court.

3. As matters transpired today I ruled that the second proposition was not a relevant ground of attack on the sequestration order because there was incontrovertible proof that the creditor's petition had been subsequently served properly on Mr Satchi more than five days before the original hearing of the creditor's petition and (of course) well before the re-hearing of the matter…