Brechin, Re S.R. Ex Parte B. Putnin & Stokes Australasia Ltd [1986] FCA 146
The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proof to establish that the debtor was unable to pay her debts as they became due from her own money at the time of the $3,000 payment; thus, the payment was not shown to be a void preference under s.122(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
- Parties
- Applicant: Bernard Putnin; Debtor: Sibrena Rose Brechin also known as Sibrena Rose Kubank; Respondent: Stokes (Australasia) Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 27 March 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy Application / Judgment at First Instance
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Preference, Insolvency, Proof of Insolvency, Admissibility of Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bernard Putnin
Applicant
Sibrena Rose Brechin also known as Sibrena Rose Kubank
Debtor
Stokes (Australasia) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application / Judgment at First Instance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the payment of $3,000 to Stokes (Australasia) Ltd was a void preference under s.122(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
- 2 Whether the debtor was insolvent at the time of the payment
- 3 Onus of proof concerning insolvency
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proof to establish that the debtor was unable to pay her debts as they became due from her own money at the time of the $3,000 payment; thus, the payment was not shown to be a void preference under s.122(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment