Kusumanadi, in the matter of Artemas v Artemas [2018] FCA 75

Kusumanadi, in the matter of Artemas v Artemas [2018] FCA 75

Mr Downey rejected Mr Widjaja's creditor claim at the creditors' meeting on 6 July 2017, and Mr Widjaja was informed of that decision on 10 July 2017. By the time of the registrar's hearing on 3 October 2017, the 60-day period for challenging that decision had expired and could not be extended. The application against J P Downey & Co was therefore bound to fail, and the proposed challenge could not provide a basis to adjourn or disturb the sequestration order. Both applications were dismissed; costs were ordered on the usual party-party basis rather than indemnity basis because the successful argument had not been forecast earlier.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy; Review of Registrar's Sequestration Order and Application Under S 104(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 / Applications Heard and Dismissed on 1 February 2018
Outcome
Both applications dismissed. Costs ordered against Ms Artemas in VID 931 of 2017 and against the applicants jointly and severally in VID 1321 of 2017; indemnity costs refused.
Legal Topics
["creditor's Petition" 'sequestration Order' "registrar's Orders" 'part X Process' "controlling Trustee's Rejection of Proof or Claim" 'time Limit to Challenge Trustee Decision' 'adjournment' 'indemnity Costs']
['bankruptcy' 'insolvency' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ["creditor's Petition" 'sequestration Order' "registrar's Orders" 'part X Process' "controlling Trustee's Rejection of Proof or Claim" 'time Limit to Challenge Trustee Decision' 'adjournment' 'indemnity Costs']

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; Review of Registrar's Sequestration Order and Application Under S 104(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 / Applications Heard and Dismissed on 1 February 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sequestration order made by a registrar on 3 October 2017 should be reviewed or adjourned to allow a challenge to Mr Downey's rejection of Mr Widjaja's creditor claim." "Whether the applicants in VID 1321 of 2017 could obtain an order under s 104(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 after the time to challenge Mr Downey's decision had expired." 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against Ms Artemas on the review application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Downey rejected Mr Widjaja's creditor claim at the creditors' meeting on 6 July 2017, and Mr Widjaja was informed of that decision on 10 July 2017. By the time of the registrar's hearing on 3 October 2017, the 60-day period for challenging that decision had expired and could not be extended. The application against J P Downey & Co was therefore bound to fail, and the proposed challenge could not provide a basis to adjourn or disturb the sequestration order. Both applications were dismissed; costs were ordered on the usual party-party basis rather than indemnity basis because the successful argument had not been forecast earlier.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed. Costs ordered against Ms Artemas in VID 931 of 2017 and against the applicants jointly and severally in VID 1321 of 2017; indemnity costs refused.

Orders

  • ['VID 931 of 2017: The interlocutory application filed by Ms Artemas on 19 October 2018 is dismissed.' "VID 931 of 2017: Ms Artemas pay Mr Kusumandi's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application including reserved costs. Such costs to be paid from the bankrupt estate with priority afforded to costs,...