Re Pease, Raymond Victor Ex Parte Malser Pty Ltd v Pease, Raymond Victor [1997] FCA 147

Re Pease, Raymond Victor Ex Parte Malser Pty Ltd v Pease, Raymond Victor [1997] FCA 147

The bankruptcy notice was not invalid. Although the costs liability arose from several Supreme Court costs orders, those orders were made in the same action and were not enforceable until the Taxing Master quantified them in one composite taxed costs order. The bankruptcy notice objectively demanded one specified sum within a specified time and clearly identified that Master Bruce's order quantified costs ordered under the earlier orders. The debtor's opposition therefore failed, the petition was amended to correct the date of the act of bankruptcy, and the Court was satisfied that the requirements for a sequestration order were proved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Creditor's Petition for a Sequestration Order / Hearing of Petition With Debtor's Notice of Opposition and Application to Amend Date of Act of Bankruptcy
Outcome
Debtor's opposition refused; petition amended; sequestration order made against the estate of Raymond Victor Pease.
Legal Topics
['bankruptcy Notice' 'act of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Order' 'costs Orders' 'taxation of Costs' "amendment of Creditor's Petition"]
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure'] ['bankruptcy Notice' 'act of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Order' 'costs Orders' 'taxation of Costs' "amendment of Creditor's Petition"]

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Creditor's Petition for a Sequestration Order / Hearing of Petition With Debtor's Notice of Opposition and Application to Amend Date of Act of Bankruptcy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the bankruptcy notice was invalid because it was based upon and required compliance with more than one judgment or order.' "Whether the bankruptcy notice wrongly referred to the order of Master Bruce as a source of the debtor's liability to pay the amount claimed." 'Whether the petition should be amended to substitute 7 August 1996 for 8 August 1996 as the date of the act of bankruptcy.' 'Whether the debtor committed the act of bankruptcy and whether a sequestration order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The bankruptcy notice was not invalid. Although the costs liability arose from several Supreme Court costs orders, those orders were made in the same action and were not enforceable until the Taxing Master quantified them in one composite taxed costs order. The bankruptcy notice objectively demanded one specified sum within a specified time and clearly identified that Master Bruce's order quantified costs ordered under the earlier orders. The debtor's opposition therefore failed, the petition was amended to correct the date of the act of bankruptcy, and the Court was satisfied that the requirements for a sequestration order were proved.

Court Disposition

Debtor's opposition refused; petition amended; sequestration order made against the estate of Raymond Victor Pease.

Orders

  • ['The petitioning creditor have leave to amend the petition by substituting the date 7 August 1996 for the date 8 August 1996 as the date upon which the act of bankruptcy occurred.' 'There be no need to re-serve the petition.' 'A sequestration order is made against the estate of the debtor.' 'Costs, including...