Anderson Rice (a firm) v Bride, Robert [1995] FCA 868

Anderson Rice (a firm) v Bride, Robert [1995] FCA 868

Section 307 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) authorises the use of a firm name in bankruptcy proceedings concerning debts incurred during the relevant period of the firm’s existence, notwithstanding subsequent changes in the partnership. A creditor's petition and bankruptcy notice issued in the firm's name, where the judgment was also in the firm's name, are valid for the purposes of a sequestration order, and retiring or joining partners do not affect this procedural entitlement so long as the liability was incurred when the relevant partnership existed. Any doubt about who is intended by the firm name can be resolved by the s307 mechanism for identifying partners.

Parties
Appellant: Anderson Rice (A Firm); Respondent: Robert Bride
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge's Decision, Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Creditor's Petition, Firm Name Proceedings, Changes in Partnership, Sequestration Order, Bankruptcy Notice
Bankruptcy Creditor's Petition Firm Name Proceedings Changes in Partnership Sequestration Order Bankruptcy Notice

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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anderson Rice (A Firm)

Appellant

Robert Bride

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge's Decision, Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a creditor's petition and bankruptcy notice in the name of a firm entitles the creditor to a sequestration order where there have been retirements and additions to the firm after judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Section 307 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) authorises the use of a firm name in bankruptcy proceedings concerning debts incurred during the relevant period of the firm’s existence, notwithstanding subsequent changes in the partnership. A creditor's petition and bankruptcy notice issued in the firm's name, where the judgment was also in the firm's name, are valid for the purposes of a sequestration order, and retiring or joining partners do not affect this procedural entitlement so long as the liability was incurred when the relevant partnership existed. Any doubt about who is intended by the firm name can be resolved by the s307 mechanism for identifying partners.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Each of the orders made on 14 December 1994 in proceeding VP 944 be set aside
  • In lieu thereof a sequestration order is made against the estate of the respondent debtor