Stanford v Bidgee Finance Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No.2)
[2011] FMCA 488
•23 June 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| STANFORD v BIDGEE FINANCE LIMITED (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (No.2) | [2011] FMCA 488 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Bankruptcy notice – application to set aside – where debtor’s petition filed with official receiver – dismissed. |
| Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 |
| Applicant: | JONATHON WOODWARD BEDEL STANFORD |
| Respondent: | BIDGEE FINANCE LIMITED (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 000 362 596) |
| File Number: | SYG 819 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 23 June 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 23 June 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 23 June 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | In Person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | B. Katekar |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Blake Dawson |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs to be taxed if not agreed in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 819 of 2011
| JONATHON WOODWARD BEDEL STANFORD |
Applicant
and
| BIDGEE FINANCE LIMITED (RECEIVERS & MANAGERS APPOINTED) (ACN 000 362 596) |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings were brought by Mr Stanford for the purposes of setting aside the bankruptcy notice.
During the course of the proceedings, whilst in discussion with
Mr Stanford concerning the time at which the application was made to this court, it became apparent that Mr Stanford had in fact, very recently, made application to the Official Receiver for debtor’s petition.
The court then adjourned for the purposes of ascertaining the status for such an application and upon its return was advised by Mr Katekar, who appears for the respondent, and confirmed by Mr Stanford that the application had indeed been made and was shortly to be processed with the result that during the course of today Mr Stanford would, in any event, be made bankrupt upon his own petition.
In those circumstances the current application is otiose and it is dismissed. However, the respondent has been put to some considerable expense in relation to the matter. It has been before the court now on three occasions and it is only proper that I should order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not agreed in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006.
I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM
Associate:
Date: 28 June 2011
0
0
1