Re Kolomy, Miloslav Anthony [1981] FCA 163

Re Kolomy, Miloslav Anthony [1981] FCA 163

Having regard to the applicant's commercial history, including convictions for fraud, previous findings in court decisions, and continued unsuitability to engage in business, the court refused the discharge application, finding that s.150(6)(h) (fraud) was established and, in any event, the application was premature and the applicant is not a proper person to be allowed to trade.

Parties
Applicant / Bankrupt: Miloslav Anthony Kolomy; Creditor (objector): Douglas Reid Skillen; Creditor (objector): Terence Edward Brown; Creditor (objector): Mahel Investments Pty. Limited; Creditor (objector): The Corporate Affairs Commission; Official Receiver: Official Receiver (Mr B.F. Williams)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 1981
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy – Application for Discharge / Hearing and Determination of Application for Discharge From Bankruptcy
Outcome
Application for discharge refused
Legal Topics
Discharge From Bankruptcy, Fraud in Bankruptcy, Objection to Discharge, Commercial Morality
Bankruptcy Discharge From Bankruptcy Fraud in Bankruptcy Objection to Discharge Commercial Morality

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miloslav Anthony Kolomy

Applicant / Bankrupt

Douglas Reid Skillen

Creditor (objector)

Terence Edward Brown

Creditor (objector)

Mahel Investments Pty. Limited

Creditor (objector)

The Corporate Affairs Commission

Creditor (objector)

Official Receiver (Mr B.F. Williams)

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy – Application for Discharge / Hearing and Determination of Application for Discharge From Bankruptcy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be discharged from bankruptcy under s.150 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has been guilty of fraud or conduct justifying refusal of discharge
  3. 3 Whether the application for discharge is premature

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard to the applicant's commercial history, including convictions for fraud, previous findings in court decisions, and continued unsuitability to engage in business, the court refused the discharge application, finding that s.150(6)(h) (fraud) was established and, in any event, the application was premature and the applicant is not a proper person to be allowed to trade.

Court Disposition

Application for discharge refused

Orders

  • The application for discharge is refused.