FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 88
File number: VID 774 of 2014 Judge: PAGONE J Date of judgment: 15 February 2016 Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – application to annul bankruptcy – sequestration order – whether applicant indemnified from paying debts set out in bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition – whether respondent lacked legal standing to be named as creditor – whether applicant solvent – whether court should look behind judgment upon which sequestration order based – whether solicitors for respondent creditors had authority to act – exercise of discretion to annul bankruptcy – conduct of applicant relevant to exercise of discretion Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 153B Cases cited: Bulicv Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited [2007] FCA 307
Francis v Eggleston Mitchell Lawyers Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 18
Hacker v Weston [2015] FCA 363
Halliday v High Performance Personnel Pty Ltd (in liq) (1993) 67 ALJR 678
Hawksford v Hawksford [2005] NSWSC 463
Makhoul v Barnes (1995) 60 FCR 572
Marek v Tregenza (1963) 109 CLR 1
Ozer v Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1197
Re Flatau; ex parte Scotch Whisky Distillers Limited (1888) 22 QBD 83
Re Lawson (1939) 11 ABC 137
Re Sarina; ex parte Wollondilly Shire Council (1980) 32 ALR 596
Reaper v Baycorp Collections PDL (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 13
Shaw v Yarranova and Another (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, 2 June 2008)
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2011] VSCA 55
Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 557
Stankiewicz v Plata [2000] FCA 1185
Wolff v Donovan (1991) 29 FCR 480
Wood v Inglis [2008] NSWSC 1147
Yarranova Pty Ltd v Shaw(No 2) [2014] FCA 616
Date of hearing: 21-22 April, 20-21 July and 21-23 December 2015 Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person Counsel for the Respondents: Mr P Fary Solicitor for the Respondents: Arnold Bloch Leibler Solicitor for the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy: Ms N Angelo of Harris Carlson Lawyers ORDERS
VID 774 of 2014 BETWEEN: JOHN RASHLEIGH SHAW
Applicant
AND: YARRANOVA PTY LTD (ACN 077 517 616)
First Respondent
NEWQUAY STAGE 2 PTY LTD (ACN 086 482 644)
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
PAGONE J
DATE OF ORDER:
15 FEBRUARY 2016
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PAGONE J:
On 17 December 2014 Mr Shaw commenced this proceeding under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to have annulled, or to have set aside, a sequestration order which had been made on 11 June 2014 by Gordon J in Yarranova Pty Ltd v Shaw(No 2) [2014] FCA 616. Mr Shaw’s application was accompanied by an affidavit dated 17 December 2014 setting out his grounds in general terms. Mr Shaw subsequently filed additional affidavits adding to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] FCA 88
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several legal issues. First, whether Shaw had been indemnified from the debts specified in the bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition. Second, whether Yarranova Pty Ltd, as a named creditor, had the legal standing to pursue the sequestration. Third, whether Shaw was solvent, which is a relevant consideration in the annulment of a bankruptcy. Fourth, whether the court should examine the judgment upon which the sequestration order was based. Finally, the court needed to consider whether the solicitors for the respondent creditors had the authority to act on behalf of Yarranova Pty Ltd.
The court found that Shaw had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he had been indemnified from the debts in question. Additionally, it was established that Yarranova Pty Ltd lacked the legal standing to be named as a creditor, as it had not provided the necessary evidence of its claim. The court also determined that Shaw was not solvent, as he had not shown that he could meet his financial obligations. The court declined to look behind the judgment upon which the sequestration order was based, and found that the solicitors for Yarranova Pty Ltd had the requisite authority to act on behalf of their client. In exercising its discretion, the court considered Shaw's conduct and found it relevant to the decision. Ultimately, the application to annul the bankruptcy was dismissed.
The orders of the court were that the application be dismissed and that Shaw pay the respondents’ costs. The dismissal of the application and the costs order were made under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.