The Owners - Strata Plan No.31534 v Nikiforova-Grigorieva

[2016] FCCA 3059

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

THE OWNERS - STRATA PLAN No.31534 v NIKIFOROVA-GRIGORIEVA & ANOR [2016] FCCA 3059

Catchwords:
BANKRUPTCY – Bankruptcy Notice – application for a sequestration order – proof of matters required on creditor’s petition – sequestration order made.

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss.43, 52

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.03C
Federal Circuit Court(Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 (Cth), rr.4.02, 4.04, 4.06

Applicant: THE OWNERS - STRATA PLAN NO 31534

First Respondent: NATALIA NIKIFOROVA-GRIGORIEVA

Second Respondent: YURI GRIGORIEV

File Number: SYG 1427 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing dates: 15 June 2016 and 10 August 2016

Date of Last Submission: 10 August 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 28 November 2016

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr John Frankcom of CCA Legal Pty Ltd

First Respondent: In person

Second Respondent: No appearance

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. A sequestration order is made against each of the estates of Natalia Nikiforova‑Grigorieva and Yuri Grigoriev.

2. The applicant creditor’s costs be paid from the estates of Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva and Yuri Grigoriev in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

3. The respondents pay the applicant creditor’s costs as agreed by the trustee of the estates of Natalia Nikiforova‑Grigorieva and Yuri Grigoriev or in default, as taxed.

4. Under the Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) a copy of these sequestration orders be given to the Official Receiver in Sydney within 2 days.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

1. The Court notes that the relevant dates of the acts of bankruptcy are 18 May 2015.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1427 of 2015

THE OWNERS - STRATA PLAN NO 31534

Applicant

And

NATALIA NIKIFOROVA-GRIGORIEVA

First Respondent

YURI GRIGORIEV

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is a creditor’s petition dated 25 May 2015 and filed on 25 May 2015, 27 July 2015 and 9 October 2015 by “The Owners – Strata Plan No 31534” (“the applicant”), seeking a sequestration order against the estates of Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva and Yuri Grigoriev (“the respondents”).

2. The petition was said to be based on the respondents’ failure to comply with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice issued for $26,651.99 on 7 April 2015, arising from a default judgment of the New South Wales Local Court (“the NSW Local Court”) made on 1 April 2015.

3. The debt upon which the applicant relies for the making of the sequestration orders is described in [1] of the creditor’s petition as follows:

   “The Respondents owe the Applicant Creditor as at 18th May 2015 the amount detailed below.

   $25,548.96 for unpaid strata levies for which sum judgment was obtained in the Local Court of NSW at Sydney proceedings number 2015/00044626 on the 1st April 2015.

   In addition, the Respondents owe costs incurred after judgment totalling $1,011.00 details of which are listed below

   Date: 01/04/2015 Description: Certified Copy of Judgment Amount: $123.00 Plaint no: 2015/00044626
   Date: 07/04/2015 Description: Bankruptcy Notice Amount: $855.00 No: BN 180120

   Date: 07/04/2015 Description: Bankruptcy Notice Search Amount: $33.00

   In addition the Respondents owe interest in the Judgment dated 1^st April 2015 (proceeding number 2015/00044626) pursuant to Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 as prescribed by Rule 36.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 totalling $286.23 (see Schedule ‘A’ attached).

   In addition the Respondents owe $1,001.00 being for levies which became due and payable to the Applicant Creditor after the statement of claim (Plaint Number 2015/00044626) was issued on 12th February 2015 and before the acts of bankruptcy. Levies are claimed pursuant to Section 78 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW) details of which are listed below.

   Date Due: 01/02/2015 Levy Type: Quarterly Levy Amount: $1,001.00 Lot No: 6

   In addition the Respondents received credits towards the judgment totalling $1,195.20 details of which are listed below.

   Date: 27/03/2015 Amount: $1,195.20

   The total sum payable by the Respondents to the Applicant Creditor is $26,651.99.”

Background

1. It became apparent throughout these proceedings that there was some confusion as to which of the respondents was the first, and which was the second. On the basis of the application to the Court, Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva is the first respondent, and her husband, Yuri Grigoriev, is the second respondent in these proceedings and will be referred to as such in this judgment.

2. The background to the applicant’s claim is based on, and arises from, a judgment of the NSW Local Court.  The applicant had commenced proceedings in that Court against the respondents to recover unpaid special levy and other levy amounts totalling $25,548.96 and costs.

3. The respondents reside in a residential unit which is part of the unit complex relevant to the Strata Plan No 31534.  The applicant had sought to pursue with the respondents the recovery of costs of defective concrete work done in relation to the respondents’ unit.

4. The parties have also been involved in two proceedings before the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“NCAT”).  One matter arose from an application by the respondents to quash the special levy in relation to the costs of the defective concrete in the unit construction.  This was dismissed.

5. The second matter arose from an application by the applicant in these proceedings to gain access to the respondents’ unit to effect repairs to the concrete works.  This matter was transferred to the New South Wales Supreme Court.  The applicant was successful and costs were awarded in its favour.

Evidence

1. The applicant seeks to rely on the following in support of its petition:

   1)The creditor's petition filed in this Court on 25 May 2015 and again on 27 July 2015 and 9 October 2015.

   2)Consent to act as Trustee filed 25 May 2015.

   3)The affidavit of service of the bankruptcy notice on Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva made by Anastacey Gavrily, licensed process server, sworn on 30 April 2015, annexing a copy of the bankruptcy notice and Certificate of Judgment.

   4)The affidavit of service of the bankruptcy notice on Yuri Grigoriev made by Anastacey Gavrily, licensed process server, sworn on 28 May 2015, annexing a copy of the bankruptcy notice and Certificate of Judgment.

   5)The affidavit verifying paragraphs [1], [2] and [3] of the creditor’s petition of Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed 25 May 2015, annexing a copy of the creditor’s petition.

   6)The affidavit verifying paragraph [4] of the creditor’s petition of Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed 25 May 2015, annexing a document relating to the relevant search of the Federal Court Register and Australian Financial Security Authority (“AFSA”).

   7)The affidavit of service of the creditor’s petition on Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva made by Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed 29 July 2015, with relevant annexures.

   8)The affidavit of service of the creditor’s petition on Yuri Grigoriev made by Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed 15 October 2015, with relevant annexures.

   9)The affidavit of final debt of Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed on 14 June 2016.

   10)The affidavit of final search of Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed 14 June 2016.

   11)The affidavit of final debt of Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed on 10 August 2016. 

   12)The affidavit of final search of Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed 10 August 2016.

2. No objection to the affidavits was taken by the first respondent (the second respondent did not appear, see further below).  The applicant also filed an outline of submissions with the Court on 5 May 2016.

3. On 3 December 2015, the first respondent filed a Notice stating grounds of opposition to the creditor’s petition.  Those grounds are as follows:

   “1. Submitted Notice of Motion to set aside Default judgment of 01 April

   2. Statement of Claim 24 Nov 2015 – 2015/345597 & of 17 Nov 2015 – 2015/338106

   3. 1^st respondent was not served Notice of Placing process on 3 March 2015

   4. Resolution of meetings of Body Corporate 15/09/2014 – 12/02/2015

   5. No agreement with David Lamb to submit Statement of Claim 12/02/2015.”

4. The first respondent has filed a number of other documents in this matter as follows:

   1)A Notice of Appearance, filed on 17 September 2015.

   2)The affidavit of Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva, carer, sworn 3 December 2015, with annexures “A” to “H”.

   3)The affidavit of Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva, carer, sworn 17 December 2015, with annexures “A” to “M”.

   4)A “Statement of Particulars” in affidavit form of Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva, sworn 11 April 2016 with annexures.

   5)The affidavit of Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva, carer, sworn 14 June 2016 with annexure.

5. Following the hearing of the matter on 15 June 2016, orders were made by the Court granting leave for the applicant to file any further evidence in relation to the notice stating grounds of opposition, written submissions in support of that evidence, and written submissions in relation to s.52 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Pursuant to these orders, the applicant filed the following documents:

   1)Outline of submissions, filed with the Court on 5 July 2016.

   2)The affidavit of David John Lamb, solicitor, affirmed 5 July 2016.

   3)The affidavit of John Nicholas Comino, solicitor, sworn 30 June 2016.

   4)The affidavit of Irina Farbman, New South Wales Strata Manager, sworn 6 July 2016.

6. The applicant’s submissions regarding the first respondent’s notice of opposition were ultimately made with reference to the affidavits.  The orders of the Court made on 15 June 2016 also gave the first and second respondents the opportunity to file written submissions in reply, but no further documents were filed by either respondent.

Before the Court

1. The matter first came before a District Registrar of the Court on 25 June 2015.  The matter was adjourned a number of times and came before the Court for the first time on 2 March 2016.  Orders were made for the filing and service of documents amongst other things, and the matter was listed for further directions on 13 April 2016.

2. At the Court event on 13 April 2016, the first respondent appeared in person.  It was unclear whether she also appeared for the second respondent.  Various orders were made and the matter was set down for final hearing on 15 June 2016. 

3. When the matter was called on 15 June 2016, the first respondent appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter in the Russian language.  The second respondent did not appear.  When asked about the appearance of the second respondent, the first respondent indicated that he was aware of the Court event, but due to an injury, he would not be attending.  The first respondent then indicated that the second respondent had not given her permission to speak on his behalf.

4. Satisfied that the second respondent had reasonable notice of the Court event, I proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of the second respondent pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(e) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) (“the FCC Rules”). In any event, due to the way the matter unfolded before the Court, and following oral submissions made by the first respondent regarding the grounds of opposition, further orders were made, including that the matter resume for hearing on 10 August 2016.

5. It was at the resumption of the hearing on 10 August 2016 that the first respondent requested an adjournment (see further below). In all, it was appropriate that the non-appearance of the second respondent, the oral request for an adjournment, the grounds of opposition and the creditor’s petition be addressed in one judgment.

6. The lack of participation by the second respondent in these proceedings requires some attention. It is to be remembered that the issue for consideration by the Court is the application for a sequestration order as against the first and second respondents. Any such consideration requires attention to any grounds put in opposition to the making of the sequestration order.

7. The Notice setting out these grounds has only been signed by the first respondent. There is no evidence before the Court that the second respondent sought to raise objections to the application for the sequestration order.

8. The second respondent has not participated in these proceedings. Unlike the first respondent, the second respondent has not filed a notice of appearance. He has filed no evidence by way of affidavit as provided by orders of the Court. He has also not made any submissions in the matter.

9. While the first respondent has made various references before the Court to the second respondent’s health situation, no evidence has been filed to support any claim that he lacked capacity, or was otherwise unable to participate in these proceedings, or to attend Court, or to arrange for legal representation, or for his interests to be represented by his wife, the first respondent.

10. Relevantly, I am satisfied that the applicant has properly served the second respondent with the requisite notice and relevant documents that the applicant seeks an order to sequester his estate (see the affidavit of service of the creditor’s petition of Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed 15 October 2015, with annexures). I am also satisfied that the second respondent had reasonable notice of the relevant Court events.

11. Towards the conclusion of the hearing before the Court (on the second occasion on 10 August 2016) the first respondent sought to tender a disparate bundle of documents. It appeared that the purpose was to support her claim that she was pursuing proceedings in another Court involving the applicant in these proceedings, and that those proceedings and the “expert’s opinion” were relevant to the bankruptcy notice and creditor’s petition, the subject of the proceedings before this Court.

12. The first respondent asked the Court to “look at” these documents and to yet further adjourn the hearing of the current matter. The documents were marked for identification (“R-MFI1”).

13. The request for the adjournment is refused. I am satisfied on the totality of the evidence before the Court, and in particular having regard to the affidavit evidence of John Nicholas Comino, solicitor, sworn 30 June 2016, that the documents do not relate to the judgment debt that gave rise to the current proceedings (see further below at [42]).

14. Amongst those documents marked for identification (“R-MFI1”) is a medical certificate signed by a medical practitioner at the “Prince of Wales Hospital” on 12 May 2016. It certifies that the second respondent had been, since 1 May 2016, to that date, a patient in the hospital.

15. Importantly, there is no evidence before the Court as to the second respondent’s medical situation as at 15 June 2016, or 10 August 2016, being the two dates over which the final hearing of this matter occurred. Nor does the certificate say anything about the second respondent’s capacity to obtain legal representation or to arrange for someone else, for example his wife, to appear for him.

16. The Rules of this Court allow, in certain circumstances, for a hearing to proceed in the absence of a party (see r.13.03C(1)(e) of the FCC Rules). Those circumstances arose in the current case in relation to the second respondent. He had notice of the proceedings, notice of the hearing dates and his absence from Court remained unexplained in any evidentiary context. The final hearing proceeded pursuant to r.13.03C(1)(e) of the FCC Rules.

17. In all, therefore, no objections have been raised by, or on behalf of, the second respondent to the making of the sequestration order. He has given no notice of any grounds in opposition to the application for the sequestration order. Therefore, it is only the first respondent’s objections that require consideration.

Grounds of Opposition

1. As set out above, the first respondent filed a notice stating grounds of opposition with the Court on 3 December 2015 (see [11] above).  At the hearing on 15 June 2016, the second respondent sought to explain the meaning of the five grounds that were contained in that document.

2. It is appropriate where unrepresented litigants are involved, that the Court approach the conduct and disposition of such matters with caution. This is especially so in matters involving unrepresented litigants where English is not their first language.  Even with this in mind, in this case, the explanation of the grounds of opposition by the first respondent remained unclear.

3. In relation to the first ground of opposition, the second respondent informed the Court that she had instituted proceedings in the NSW Local Court to have the judgment of 1 April 2015, which forms the basis of the creditor’s petition in this Court, made against her, and her husband in their absence, set aside.  Initially, the first respondent indicated that she “thought” the NSW Local Court judgment had been set aside, however she subsequently stated that as at the date of the hearing (15 June 2016) that judgment had not been set aside, but had been “referred to the Supreme Court”, which also made orders that the quantum of the special levies should be decided by an “expert” appointed by the Law Society.

4. In relation to the second ground of opposition, the first respondent indicated that this was a reference to a “statement of costs” of 8 September 2015, that is, legal costs “valued” at $5000. On 9 October 2015, there was a “decision” to submit this “claim” to a “costs assessor”.  But subsequently “they” (presumably the first and second respondent), “signed [a] notice of discontinuance” because the strata management said they would not be “insisting” on the costs.

5. The reference in the third ground of opposition to the “[p]lacing process”, was explained by the first respondent as a reference to the service of “documents” that indicated the “time and place of the hearing”.  It became clear that the first respondent was essentially seeking to explain her, and her husband’s non-appearance at the Court event in the NSW Local Court on 1 April 2015, resulting in the default judgment being entered in their absence (see further below as to the outcome of the application to set aside default judgment).

6. The fourth ground of review ultimately went to the “Body Corporates”, that is, the Strata or Owners Corporation’s, authority to bring the proceedings against the first and second respondent that resulted in the judgment debt.  The first respondent indicated that there was “no resolution” of the “Body Corporate” to “apply to the Court”.

7. The fifth ground of review was similar to the fourth in that the first respondent appeared to be questioning a decision of the “Body Corporate” to appoint a lawyer, Mr David Lamb to act on its behalf.  She appeared aggrieved by the fact she was not aware of the decision, and by the fact the she had not seen any agreement between the applicant and the lawyer, presumably evidencing a retainer of some kind, and therefore an authority to act on the applicant’s behalf.

8. The solicitor for the applicant indicated that his instructions were that the NSW Local Court refused the application to set aside. However, in light of the first respondent’s explanation of the grounds of opposition which emerged for the first time at the hearing on 15 June 2016, I granted leave for the applicant to file and serve further affidavit evidence and written submissions going to those issues. I also gave the respondents the opportunity to file written submissions in reply. The matter was listed for the resumption of the hearing on 10 August 2016.

Application for Adjournment of Hearing

1. At the resumption of the hearing on 10 August 2016, the first respondent appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter in the Russian language. At the Court event, she made an oral application for an adjournment and tendered a small bundle of documents in support of the application (“RE1”).  The first document is an email from the respondents’ solicitor, whom she indicated they had retained to represent “them” (presumably her and her husband) in a matter “currently” before the NSW Local Court.  The second document is a “Notice of Listing” for 18 August 2016, said to concern that “same” matter.

2. The first respondent sought the adjournment on the basis that the matter currently before the NSW Local Court concerned the “same” matter as that of 1 April 2015 resulting in the judgment debt. As mentioned previously, the first respondent also tendered another bundle of documents that I marked for identification (“R-MFI1”), so as to determine their relevance to the proceedings.

3. The applicant’s solicitor indicated that [5] – [6] of the affidavit of John Nicholas Comino, solicitor, sworn 30 July 2016, goes to the Supreme Court proceedings that the first respondent claimed were relevant to the bankruptcy notice and the claim that the matter currently before the NSW Local Court concerns the “same” matter as that of 1 April 2015. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:

   “[5] I passed onto the Respondent’s then solicitor, Mr Albert Judah, the invoices for the works done being $12,078 for the first progress claim, $8,052.00 for the second progress claim, and $539.00 for repair and damage caused by spalling concrete falling from the Lot 6 balcony, by letter dated 27 August 2015. The experts process mentioned in paragraph 4 of this my affidavit did not eventuate due to the failure of the Respondents to comply with the Law Society requirements to make their contribution to the experts costs. The Law Society closed its file and did not proceed to appoint an expert. Thus the expert determination process failed to eventuate.

   [6] The remedial works were completed by National Building Maintenance on or about 24 August 2015. Subsequently I was instructed to commence proceedings in the Local Court to recover from the Respondents the extra costs incurred arising from the Respondents failure to grant access to the site. Those proceedings were commenced in proceedings number 2015/338106 (Local Court Proceedings). As a result of the Local Court Proceedings an amount of $21,803.00 plus Interest and Costs as agreed or assessed is now due and owing to the Owners Corporation. The Local Court entered Judgment against the Respondents in the Local Court Proceedings on 10 May 2016.”

4. It was clear from previous occasions before the Court in this matter, that the first respondent saw these proceedings as in great part being an opportunity to further air her grievances with the applicant, and other residents of her unit complex. This also extended to an attempt to revisit matters dealt with by the State Courts, and the NCAT.  The affidavit material she has filed in these proceedings is also directed to these purposes.

5. The first respondent and the applicant have had a long history of disputation, including a number of “incidents”. It is clear from the first respondent’s submissions and statements to the Court that she has not distinguished between the events leading to the judgment debt upon which the creditor’s petition is based and other, subsequent, incidents, involving herself and the applicant.

6. As stated above, the bankruptcy notice and subsequent creditor’s petition filed in this Court on 25 May 2015 and subsequently on 27 July 2015 and 9 October 2015, relevant now to the application for a sequestration order, arose out of a judgment of the NSW Local Court made on 1 April 2015.

7. On the evidence before the Court, and as is made clear in the creditor’s petition, the judgment debt ($25,548.96) arose from unpaid strata levies.

8. It must be said that the first respondent’s approach before the Court, was to seek to focus on matters not specifically relevant to the creditor’s petition. This was exemplified by many of the assertions in her affidavits and supporting documents (“R‑MFI1”) which relate to subsequent events to those that are the focus of the creditor’s petition. These matters involve remedial work and repairs to the concreting of the walls and balconies of the apartment complex which includes the respondents’ lot. In short, these proceedings were not the opportunity for the first respondent to air all her grievances with the applicant.

9. The first respondent’s references in her submissions to ongoing matters relate to a dispute concerning the respondents’ contribution to those repairs and related matters. While the first respondent may see these subsequent events as being part of her ongoing “dispute” and prior relationship with the applicant, what remains, on the evidence, is that these subsequent events are separate to, and arise from different circumstances to, those which gave rise to the judgment debt at the heart of the applicant’s current application.

10. The first respondent’s request for a further adjournment should therefore be refused. None of the material which has been marked as “R-MFI1” is relevant to the matter of the creditor’s petition. There is also nothing to indicate that these matters form the part of any “set-off” consideration.

11. In relation to each of the grounds of opposition, the first concerning the application to have the NSW Local Court judgment set aside, on the evidence before the Court (see the affidavit of David John Lamb, solicitor, affirmed 5 July 2016), leave for that purpose was refused, with costs, on 19 November 2015. That affidavit evidence also indicates that the respondents filed another notice of motion to set aside the same default judgment in the NSW Local Court but that that notice of motion could not be reviewed as the previous notice of motion had already been determined by a Magistrate.

12. As to the remainder of the grounds of opposition, they relate to the subsequent matter of the repairs to the concreting, and not the unpaid levies the subject of the judgment debt. While the first respondent has referred to “special levies” in this context, there is nothing to indicate they are part of the unpaid levies on which the judgment debt was founded.

Proof of matters specified in s.52(1) of the Act

1. I note that the time for compliance with s.52(4) of the Act in relation to lapse of the creditor’s petition was extended by order made on 13 April 2016.

2. The Court’s jurisdiction to make the sequestration order arises from s.43(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”). On the evidence I am satisfied that:

   1)The respondents have committed an act of bankruptcy.

   2)The respondents were personally present and resident in Australia at the time of the act of bankruptcy.

3. The sequestration order should be made as against each of the respondents, as I am satisfied on the evidence that the matters in s.52(1) of the Act have been proven by the applicant. I am satisfied of the following matters:

   1)The respondents were served with the bankruptcy notice on 27 April 2015 (see the affidavits of service of bankruptcy notice of Anastacey Gavrily sworn 30 April 2015 and 28 May 2015).

   2)The creditor’s petition filed by the applicant on 25 May 2015 and returnable before the Court on 25 June 2015 is in accordance with Form 6 of the Federal Circuit Court (Federal Circuit Court(Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 (Cth) (“Bankruptcy Rules”), the Rules as at the relevant time) (see in particular r.4.02(1) of the Bankruptcy Rules and the creditor’s petition of 25 May 2015)).

   3)The matters stated at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the creditor’s petition are verified in accordance with Part 2 of Form 6 and those matters are, therefore, proved (see r.4.02(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules). Those matters are that the respondents owe the applicant $26,651.99 pursuant to a judgment entered in the NSW Local Court at Sydney, the applicant holds no security over any property of the respondents that at the time the act of bankruptcy was committed, and the respondents had a dwelling house in Australia. Further, the respondents failed to comply with the bankruptcy notice served on them on 27 April 2015, and thereby committed an act of bankruptcy on 18 May 2015 (see the affidavit of Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, verifying paragraphs [1], [2] and [3] of the creditor’s petition affirmed 25 May 2015, and the affidavit of Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, verifying paragraph [4] of the creditor’s petition, affirmed 25 May 2015).

   4)The creditor’s petition was accompanied by an affidavit stating that on 25 May 2015, the records maintained by the Federal Court and of this Court, were searched and no application had been made in relation to the bankruptcy notice issued to the respondents (r.4.04(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules and the affidavit of search of Stephen Ecob, affirmed on 25 May 2015).

   5)On 27 July 2015 and on 15 October 2015, being more than five days before the hearing date fixed for the hearing of the creditor’s petition, the first respondent and the second respondent respectively, were served with, amongst other things, a sealed copy of the creditor’s petition, an affidavit of service of the bankruptcy notice and an affidavit verifying the creditor’s petition (r.4.06(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules) (see the affidavit of service of the creditor’s petition on Natalia Nikiforova-Grigorieva made by Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed 28 July 2015, and the affidavit of service of the creditor’s petition on Yuri Grigoriev made by Stephen Ecob, licensed commercial agent, affirmed 15 October 2015).

   6)An affidavit of debt and an affidavit as required by r.4.06 of the Bankruptcy Rules were filed with the Court on 10 August 2016 (see the affidavit of final search of Stephen Ecob, affirmed on 10 August 2016 and the affidavit of final debt of Stephen Ecob, affirmed on 10 August 2016).

Conclusion

1. I am satisfied that the petitioning creditor has proved the matters it is required to prove under s.52(1) of the Act and that sequestration orders should be made against the estates of the first and second respondents.

I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Date:  28 November 2016