Citicorp Australia & Anor v Hudson, R.J. & Ors [1986] FCA 203

Citicorp Australia & Anor v Hudson, R.J. & Ors [1986] FCA 203

In the bankruptcy jurisdiction, there is no provision equivalent to Order 35 Rule 10 of the Federal Court Rules permitting orders by consent solely on written agreement by solicitors; the absence causes unnecessary cost because all parties must appear, even where a consent order is appropriate, but court may use its discretion under s 30(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act to give effect to such consent.

Parties
First Applicant: Citicorp Australia Limited; Second Applicant: Allan Richard Taylor; First Respondent: Raymond John Hudson; Second Respondent: Sabstern Pty. Limited; Third Respondent: Erica May Hudson; Third Respondent: Carina Olive Wickham; Fourth Respondent: Tim Maguire; Fourth Respondent: Michael Maguire; Fifth Respondent: Jennifer Anne Solly
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 1986
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Final Orders by Consent After Litigation
Outcome
Consent order made: money paid out, undertakings discharged, application struck out, no order as to costs except prior costs for fourth respondents.
Legal Topics
Consent Order, Court Procedure, Order 35 Rule 10 Federal Court Rules, Section 30(1)(b) Bankruptcy Act 1966
Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure Consent Order Court Procedure Order 35 Rule 10 Federal Court Rules Section 30(1)(b) Bankruptcy Act 1966

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Citicorp Australia Limited

First Applicant

Allan Richard Taylor

Second Applicant

Raymond John Hudson

First Respondent

Sabstern Pty. Limited

Second Respondent

Erica May Hudson

Third Respondent

Carina Olive Wickham

Third Respondent

Tim Maguire

Fourth Respondent

Michael Maguire

Fourth Respondent

Jennifer Anne Solly

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Final Orders by Consent After Litigation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Bankruptcy jurisdiction permits procedure similar to Order 35 Rule 10 of Federal Court Rules for consent orders
  2. 2 Whether the absence of such a rule causes unnecessary costs for parties

Ratio Decidendi

In the bankruptcy jurisdiction, there is no provision equivalent to Order 35 Rule 10 of the Federal Court Rules permitting orders by consent solely on written agreement by solicitors; the absence causes unnecessary cost because all parties must appear, even where a consent order is appropriate, but court may use its discretion under s 30(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act to give effect to such consent.

Court Disposition

Consent order made: money paid out, undertakings discharged, application struck out, no order as to costs except prior costs for fourth respondents.

Orders

  • The balance of money ($135,431.41 plus accretions) paid into court by fourth respondent and invested with National Australia Bank Limited to be paid to solicitors for fifth respondent, Skinner & Smith.
  • The undertaking given on 30 May 1985 by second respondent, Sabstern Pty Ltd, is discharged.