FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
St George Bank Ltd v Helfenbaum [1999] FCA 1337
BANKRUPTCY – Creditor’s petition – Grounds for refusal of sequestration order – Sufficient cause – Whether set‑off or cross claim sufficient cause – Whether real claim likely to succeed – Whether debtor able to pay debts – Meaning of “able to pay debts” – Whether “able” means “willing and able”.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 s 52(2)
Ling v Enrobook Pty Ltd (1997) 74 FCR 19 applied
Cain v Whyte (1933) 48 CLR 639 applied
Re Player (1962) 19 ABC 277 applied
Re Schmidt; Ex parte Anglewood Pty Ltd (1968) 13 FLR 111 applied
Commonwealth Bank v McDonald [1999] FCA 984 applied
Re Rivett; Ex parte Edward Fay Ltd (1932) 5 ABC 182 applied
Re Douglas Griggs Engineering Ltd [1963] 1 Ch 19 cited
Vogwell v Vogwell (1939) 11 ABC 83 cited
Bank of Australasia v Hall (1907) 4 CLR 1514 considered
Re Jones; Ex parte Clutterbuck Bros (Adelaide) Ltd (1930) 2 ABC 89 applied
Re Noye; Ex parte Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1958) 18 ABC 77 applied
Sandell v Porter (1966) 115 CLR 666 applied
Re Eather; Ex parte Polada (unreported, 30 May 1996, Cooper J) cited
Re McVey; Ex parte Carswell & Co (unreported 22 May 1996, Cooper J) cited
International Alpaca Management Pty Ltd v Ensor [1999] FCA 72 cited
Re Sarina; Ex parte Wollondilly Shire Council (1980) 32 ALR 596 applied
Clyne v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 150 CLR 1 appliedST GEORGE BANK LIMITED v JEFFREY LEON HELFENBAUM
VG 7911 OF 1998
SUNDBERG J
24 SEPTEMBER 1999
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 7911 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
ST GEORGE BANK LIMITED (ACN 005 513 070)
ApplicantAND:
JEFFREY LEON HELFENBAUM
Respondent
JUDGE:
SUNDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:
24 SEPTEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 7911 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
ST GEORGE BANK LIMITED (ACN 005 513 070)
ApplicantAND:
JEFFREY LEON HELFENBAUM
Respondent
JUDGE:
SUNDBERG J
DATE:
24 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND
On 17 February 1998 the applicant’s predecessor, Advance Bank of Australia, obtained judgment against the respondent in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne for $21,117.20 for money owing under a loan contract. It is not necessary to distinguish between the applicant and its predecessor, and I will refer to each of them as “the Bank”. The respondent was granted a three months stay of the judgment. The stay expired on or about 17 May 1998. On 13 July 1998 a bankruptcy notice was served on the respondent. The notice was based on his failure to pay the amount of the judgment. On 30 July the respondent applied for a further stay of the judgment, which was refused. On 31 July he…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read St George Bank Ltd v Helfenbaum 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
- [1999] FCA 1337
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the respondent's counterclaim against the Bank did not constitute sufficient cause to set aside the bankruptcy notice because the respondent could have raised it in the original proceedings. The court also considered the respondent's ability to pay his debts, noting that the respondent had applied for an instalment order but had failed to make full and frank disclosure of his debts, leading to the cancellation of the order. The court held that the term "able to pay debts" in the context of the Bankruptcy Act meant more than just having the willingness to pay; it also required the debtor to be in a position to meet their financial obligations in a manner consistent with the Act. Given the respondent's history of non-disclosure and the failure of his instalment application, the court concluded that the respondent did not have a viable means to pay his debts, which was a necessary condition to oppose the sequestration order.
The court dismissed the Bank's application and ordered the Bank to pay the respondent's costs of the application. This decision underscores the importance of full disclosure and the need for debtors to demonstrate a genuine ability to meet their financial obligations when opposing a sequestration order.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: SUNDBERG J
Full text does not contain this section.