Bremer, Re D.L. Lawson & Laughlin Pty Ltd, Ex parte [1988] FCA 348

Bremer, Re D.L. Lawson & Laughlin Pty Ltd, Ex parte [1988] FCA 348

The debtor did not satisfy the onus under sub-s.52(2) to show that he was able to pay his debts or that there was other sufficient cause to dismiss or adjourn the petition. The pending Supreme Court action against ANZ did not justify holding up the petition, and the arrangements between ANZ and the petitioning creditor were not untoward, suspicious, an abuse of process, or sufficient cause not to make the order. The failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice on or before 23 March 1988 was proved as an act of bankruptcy, the matters in sub-s.52(1) were proved, and a sequestration order was therefore made. A stay was refused because the Court was not satisfied that it was appropriate to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition for Sequestration of the Debtor's Estate / Extempore Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Order
Outcome
Sequestration order made against the estate of the debtor; stay refused.
Legal Topics
['sequestration Order' "opposition to Creditor's Petition" 'ability to Pay Debts' 'sufficient Cause Not to Make Sequestration Order' 'act of Bankruptcy' 'stay of Sequestration Order']
['bankruptcy'] ['sequestration Order' "opposition to Creditor's Petition" 'ability to Pay Debts' 'sufficient Cause Not to Make Sequestration Order' 'act of Bankruptcy' 'stay of Sequestration Order']

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 Petition for Sequestration of the Debtor's Estate / Extempore Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the debtor was able to pay his debts within sub-s.52(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.' "Whether the debtor's Supreme Court action against Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited constituted sufficient cause to dismiss or adjourn the petition." 'Whether discussions and costs arrangements between the petitioning creditor and ANZ tainted the proceedings or amounted to sufficient cause not to make a sequestration order.' 'Whether the alleged acts of bankruptcy and the matters required by sub-s.52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 were proved.' 'Whether a stay should be granted pending a possible appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The debtor did not satisfy the onus under sub-s.52(2) to show that he was able to pay his debts or that there was other sufficient cause to dismiss or adjourn the petition. The pending Supreme Court action against ANZ did not justify holding up the petition, and the arrangements between ANZ and the petitioning creditor were not untoward, suspicious, an abuse of process, or sufficient cause not to make the order. The failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice on or before 23 March 1988 was proved as an act of bankruptcy, the matters in sub-s.52(1) were proved, and a sequestration order was therefore made. A stay was refused because the Court was not satisfied that it was appropriate to...

Court Disposition

Sequestration order made against the estate of the debtor; stay refused.

Orders

  • ['A Sequestration Order be made against the estate of the Debtor.' 'Costs, including reserved costs, be in accordance with the statute.' 'The costs of Kenneth Wayne Lamb be paid out of the estate.' 'The application for a stay is refused.']