Yang v Mead

[2009] FMCA 149

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

YANG v MEAD & ANOR [2009] FMCA 149

BANKRUPTCY – Sequestration order – review – debtor’s petition – where applicant speaks little English – whether petition ought to have been accepted by Official Receiver – whether applicant misled as to the purpose of engaging the trustee and the effect of signing the petition – whether applicant solvent.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.153B
Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006

Yang v Mead [2008] FMCA 798
Re Deriu (1970) 16 FLR 420
Heinrich v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2003] FCAFC 315

Applicant: GRACE YANG

First Respondent: COLIN ANTHONY MEAD

Second Respondent: ROBERT WILLIAM WHITTON

File Number: SYG 1861 of 2008

Judgment of: Raphael FM

Hearing date: 24 February 2009

Date of Last Submission: 24 February 2009

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 24 February 2009

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In Person

Counsel for the First
Respondent: Mr Bedrossian

Solicitors for the First
Respondent: Etheringtons Solicitors

ORDERS

1. Application dismissed.

2. Applicant to pay the costs of the First Respondent to be assessed or taxed pursuant to the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1861 of 2008

GRACE YANG

Applicant

And

COLIN ANTHONY MEAD

First Respondent

ROBERT WILLIAM WHITTON

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There comes before me today an application by the bankrupt, Grace Yang, to annul the sequestration order that followed from the presentation of her own petition on or about 13 June 2008, when Robert William Whitton was appointed her trustee. An application of this type is made under s.153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and in relation to a debtors petition, the Court must be satisfied that the petition ought not to have been accepted by the Official Receiver.

2. This application is the latest in a very long series of applications and pieces of litigation between the bankrupt and a Mr Colin Mead, the first respondent and judgment creditor.  In short, Ms Yang has involved herself in disputes between Mr Mead and other members of her family, in particular, her sister who was married to Mr Mead.  These excursions into litigation have not proved beneficial to Ms Yang.  She has had costs orders made against her, even in proceedings in which she was not originally a party.  She appears always to have conducted the proceedings herself, and never to have involved a lawyer, notwithstanding the very large sums of money allegedly involved. That this was a serious error appears to me to be self-evident.

3. In 2004 Mr Mead obtained a judgment against a company, which I understand was run or owned by Ms Yang and family in the sum of $738,335.93.  That judgment, together with interest thereon, formed the basis of the bankruptcy notice NN0766/08 which was issued by the Official Receiver, and which claimed a debt, including interest, of $973,895.43.  Ms Yang sought to set aside that bankruptcy notice. 

4. The application was heard in this Court by Smith FM, who gave judgment on 6 June…