Steven Kay GIO General Ltd (ACN 002 861 583) ( formerly GIO Australia Holdings Limited )

Case [1994] FCA 1056


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )

NP 2770 of 1994

GENERAL DIVISION

RE:

STEVEN KAY

Debtor

EX PARTE:

G10 GENERAL LTD /ACN 002 861 5831

(formerly G10 AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS

LIMITED)

Creditor

CORAM: Burchett J.

PLACE: Sydney

DATE : 13 December 1994

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J.:

This matter involves an extraordinarily confused story. The creditor's petition has been brought by a creditor described as follows, "G10 General Limited, ACN 002.861.583 (formerly G10 Australia Holdings Limited)". In fact, G10 Australia Holdings Limited is a separate company, with a separate ACN number, and G10 General Limited was never G10 Australia Holdings Limited.

The evidence shows that, pursuant to a statute of the New South Wales Parliament, the Government Insurance Office .(Privatisation) Act 1991, and particularly ss. 20 and 21 of that Act, a ministerial order was made dated either 29th or 30th - the copy I have is not clear - of June 1992. At any rate, whatever the date of the signing of the ministerial-.

2.

order by the Treasurer of the State of New South Wales pursuant to that Act, it was expressed to take effect on 30 June 1992. The ministerial order involved a somewhat complex process of transfer, but the parties accept that at the end of the process envisaged by it, -and on 30 June 1992, certain assets and rights of the insurance business formerly carried on by the Government Insurance Office became vested in G10 General Limited.

In a proceeding brought in the District Court against the debtor, which was commenced on 31 July 1990 in the name of the Government Insurance Office of New South Wales, at some stage an amended statement of liquidated claim was filed by which the name of the plaintiff seems to have been amended to G10 Australia Holdings Llmited, ACN 054.573.401, after which was inserted in brackets the statement, "formerly The Government Insurance Office of New South Wales". The amended statement of liquidated claim does not appear to indicate its own date, but refers to the orlginal date of the issue of the proceeding, which, as I have said, was 31 July 1990.

At any rate, on 28 July 1992, judgment was entered in the District Court in favour of G10 Australia Holdings Limited. It seems to me that, in these circumstances, the judgment was entered in the name of a company which, on the petitioning creditor's own case, had no title to it. Almost exactly a month before its date, all right to the claim which became crystallised in the judgment had been- transferred to a--

3.

,

different company, pursuant to the provisions of the statute

to which I have referred.

Thereafter, the petition was instituted on the basis that the petitioning creditor -held a -judgment, which, of course, the petitioning creditor did not hold. In these circumstances, the defect cannot be described as a merely formal defect within the meaning of S. 306 of the Bankru~tcy

m, 1966. On the contrary, it is an absolutely fundamental

defect in the whole proceeding, and the petition must be dismissed. Accordingly, I dismiss the petition, and I order that the petitioning creditor pay the debtor's costs including reserved costs.

I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Burchett.

Associate:

Date: 12 January 1995

Solicitor for the Debtor:

Miss S. Nash of Sally

Nash & CO

Counsel for the Creditor:

M r D.R. Stack

Solicitor for Supporting

Creditor:

Mr A. Restuccia

Solicitors for the Creditor:

Hunt & Hunt

Date of hearing:

13 December -1994

Details
AGLC
Steven Kay GIO General Ltd (ACN 002 861 583) ( formerly GIO Australia Holdings Limited ) [1994] FCA 1056
Case
[1994] FCA 1056
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Federal Court of Australia heard an application brought by GIO General Limited (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Limited) against Steven Kay, seeking to have him declared bankrupt. The petitioner, GIO General Limited, claimed to hold a judgment against the debtor, which formed the basis of their petition. However, the case was complicated by the fact that GIO Australia Holdings Limited, the entity that obtained the judgment, had transferred its rights and assets to GIO General Limited before the judgment was entered. This transfer occurred pursuant to the Government Insurance Office (Privatisation) Act 1991, which mandated the vesting of certain assets and rights in GIO General Limited on 30 June 1992.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the petitioner, GIO General Limited, had the requisite judgment to petition for the debtor's bankruptcy. The court had to determine if the transfer of assets and rights from GIO Australia Holdings Limited to GIO General Limited prior to the judgment meant that GIO General Limited was the proper party to hold the judgment and initiate bankruptcy proceedings. The court also needed to consider whether this defect was a mere formality that could be overlooked or if it constituted a fundamental error that rendered the petition invalid.

Justice Burchett held that the defect in the petition was not merely formal but fundamental, as GIO General Limited did not hold the judgment when it was entered. The transfer of rights and assets to GIO General Limited prior to the judgment meant that GIO Australia Holdings Limited had no title to the claim at the time the judgment was entered. This fundamental error meant that the petition was invalid, and the court dismissed the petition. The court further ordered that GIO General Limited pay the debtor's costs, including reserved costs.

The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all procedural requirements are met in bankruptcy proceedings. In this case, the failure to correctly identify the entity holding the judgment resulted in the dismissal of the petition. The court's ruling highlighted the necessity for creditors to maintain accurate records and ensure that all legal requirements are fulfilled to avoid such procedural pitfalls.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.