Steeline Roofing Products v Dobson

Steeline Roofing Products Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought a sequestration order against Mr. Dobson (the respondent). The dispute concerned whether Mr. Dobson had committed an act of bankruptcy, rendering him liable to be bankrupted, despite the applicant's claim that the debt owed had fallen below the statutory threshold at the time the sequestration order was sought. The matter came before Judge Raphael in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent had committed an act of bankruptcy. This required determining whether the debt owed to the applicant was above the statutory threshold at the time the bankruptcy notice was issued, even if it had subsequently fallen below that threshold. A secondary issue concerned an application to transfer the proceedings to the Brisbane Registry, which was made orally at the first return date and then formally at a later stage.

Judge Raphael reasoned that the relevant time for assessing the debt threshold was the date of the issue of the bankruptcy notice, not the date of the application for the sequestration order. As the debt to the supporting creditors was above the statutory threshold at the time the bankruptcy notice was issued, an act of bankruptcy had been committed. The Court also noted that the application to transfer the proceedings was made late and without sufficient justification, and therefore refused it.

Consequently, Judge Raphael made the sequestration order against the respondent.