Sukkar Rahim Pty Ltd v Fong

[2016] FCCA 1582

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SUKKAR RAHIM PTY LTD v FONG [2016] FCCA 1582

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Sequestration order.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.156A

Applicant: SUKKAR RAHIM PTY LTD

Respondent: VICTOR FONG

File Number: SYG 2202 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Dowdy

Hearing date: 27 June 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 27 June 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Finnane.

Solicitors for the Applicant: McCabes Lawyers.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Allen.

Solicitors for the Respondent: Kekatos Lawyers.

ORDERS

The Court orders as follows:

1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of Victor Fong, the respondent, under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

2. The applicant creditor’s costs, including any reserved costs, be taxed and paid from the bankrupt estate of the respondent in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

3. Note that the act of bankruptcy is 17 July 2015.

4. Note that a consent to act as trustees has been signed by Messrs David Ian Mansfield and Ezio Senatore, under section 156A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

5. A copy of this sequestration order be given to the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy in Sydney by 2 August 2016.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2202 of 2015

SUKKAR RAHIM PTY LTD

Applicant

And

VICTOR FONG

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was set down for hearing today before me on a one-day basis.  The moving party was the creditor on a creditor’s petition, seeking a sequestration order against Mr Fong, the respondent.  A notice of opposition had been filed, and there had also been filed an amended notice of opposition.  At the hearing this morning, Mr Allen of Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent to inform the Court that the notice of opposition and amended notice of opposition were no longer pressed, and that there was no opposition to the making of a sequestration order. 

2. In these circumstances, Mr Finnane of Counsel, who appeared for the applicant, has read a body of the conventional affidavit evidence, which satisfies me that the preconditions for the making of a sequestration order have been established.  Mr Allen of Counsel does not oppose that view of the evidence and has indicated that he could not see any defects in the evidence led by the Applicant in support of a sequestration order being made against his client.  Mr Finnane has also provided a draft of sequestration and ancillary orders, to which Mr Allen has no objection and which seem to me to be entirely appropriate. 

3. For the preceding reasons I make the orders appearing above.

I certify that the preceding three (3) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dowdy

Date: 27 June 2016