St George Bank v Pepi

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ST GEORGE BANK v PEPI [2011] FMCA 350

BANKRUPTCY – Bankruptcy notice – adjournment of sequestration application – notice of appeal – sequestration order.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.52

Re Bryant; Ex parte Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1994] FCA 1062
Commissioner of Taxation v Cumins [2008] FCA 353
Sandell v Porter (1966) 115 CLR 666
Wright & Ors v Westpac Banking Corporation [2010] QCA 190

Applicant: ST GEORGE BANK – A DIVISION OF WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

Respondent: SANDRA LOUISE PEPI

File Number: BRG 153 of 2011

Judgment of: Burnett FM

Hearing date: 20 April 2011

Date of Last Submission: 20 April 2011

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 20 April 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D. Savage of Senior Counsel

Solicitors for the Applicant: Gadens Lawyers

The Respondent appeared on his own behalf

ORDERS

1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of SANDRA LOUISE PEPI.

2. The applicant creditor’s costs be taxed and paid from the estate of the respondent debtor in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

3. A consent to act as trustee has been signed by Ann Fordyce.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 153 of 2011

ST GEORGE BANK – A DIVISION OF WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

Applicant

And

SANDRA LOUISE PEPI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

1. An application has been filed seeking an adjournment of the sequestration application by each of the three respondents, they being:  Ronald John Wright, Kyle Jonathan Wright, and Sandra Louise Pepi.  Dealing first with Mr Ronald John Wright.  Mr Wright makes his application on the basis that he has lodged a notice of appeal in respect of an order made by me on 24 January 2011, which order was to dismiss an application by him to set aside the bankruptcy notice, which had been served upon him.  A notice of appeal was filed on

   
   

   14 February, which was within the time allowed for appeal but before the settled reasons in my decision, which were given on 24 January, were then provided to him.

2. The settled reasons appear to have been provided to him on or about

   
   

   17 March.  First I note the solicitors for the applicant creditor wrote to Mr Wright in respect of their notice of appeal on 22 March 2011, observing in the first ground of appeal, that the debtor had stated that ground of appeal was to be determined by the appellant upon the receipt of the transcript of the judgment, being reference to my judgment of 24 January.  They enclosed in their letter of 22 March, a copy of the reasons for decision.

3. The debtor has been in possession of my reasons for nearly a month but notwithstanding that matter, no particulars of the notice of appeal have been forthcoming.  When I inquired of him as to what could be expected in the notice of appeal, he informed me that he sought a right to prosecute a counter-claim for $100 million dollars premised upon a…