Toyota Finance Australia Ltd v Berro

Toyota Finance Australia Ltd sought sequestration of Youssef Berro's estate based on a judgment debt. Berro contested the petition, arguing he was not served with the creditor's petition, did not owe the debt, and was solvent. The court had to determine if Toyota adequately proved the requirements for a sequestration order and if Berro met the burden to show he could pay his debts or there was another sufficient cause to refuse the order.

The court found that Toyota had provided sufficient evidence of the debt and service of the creditor's petition. Affidavits from Toyota's process server and legal staff confirmed Berro was served with the petition. Berro failed to provide evidence to counter Toyota's claims, and his assertion of lack of service was contradicted by the process server's affidavit. The court noted Berro's financial situation, including assets and income, but found he did not establish he could pay his debts as they fell due.

Regarding Berro's application to set aside the sequestration order made in his absence, the court held that there was evidence Berro did receive notice of the hearing. The court dismissed Berro's application to set aside the sequestration order and his application to review the decision, ordering Berro to pay Toyota's costs of the interim application.