Da Vesi Construction Group Pty Ltd v De Andrade [2019] FCA 553

Da Vesi Construction Group Pty Ltd v De Andrade [2019] FCA 553

The Court refused an extension of time because Ms De Andrade had no reasonable explanation for the delay, was served with the bankruptcy notice, creditor's petition and sequestration order or otherwise had notice of the adjourned hearing, was not shown to be able to pay her debts when the sequestration order was made or at the hearing, and creditors would suffer prejudice. There was therefore no arguable case that the Registrar's sequestration order ought not to have been made or should be set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy and Insolvency / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Review Under S 35 A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) and Application to Review a Registrar's Sequestration Order, Heard Together
Outcome
The interlocutory application for an extension of time was dismissed and the application for review of the Registrar's sequestration order was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' "review of Registrar's Exercise of Power" 'sequestration Order' "service of Creditor's Petition" 'substituted Service' 'ability to Pay Debts' 'prejudice to Creditors']
['bankruptcy and Insolvency' 'federal Civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['extension of Time' "review of Registrar's Exercise of Power" 'sequestration Order' "service of Creditor's Petition" 'substituted Service' 'ability to Pay Debts' 'prejudice to Creditors']

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 and Insolvency / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Review Under S 35 A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) and Application to Review a Registrar's Sequestration Order, Heard Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended for Ms De Andrade to apply for review of the Registrar's sequestration order." 'Whether Ms De Andrade gave a sufficient explanation for the delay in seeking review.' "Whether there was an arguable case that the sequestration order should not have been made, including whether the creditor's petition and sequestration order were served and whether Ms De Andrade was able to pay her debts." 'Whether prejudice to creditors weighed against an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused an extension of time because Ms De Andrade had no reasonable explanation for the delay, was served with the bankruptcy notice, creditor's petition and sequestration order or otherwise had notice of the adjourned hearing, was not shown to be able to pay her debts when the sequestration order was made or at the hearing, and creditors would suffer prejudice. There was therefore no arguable case that the Registrar's sequestration order ought not to have been made or should be set aside.

Court Disposition

The interlocutory application for an extension of time was dismissed and the application for review of the Registrar's sequestration order was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The interlocutory application for an extension of time for applying for a review under s 35A(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) of the Registrar's exercise of power on 26 October 2018, making orders that the estate of Ms Ruby De Andrade be sequestrated under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) with...