Re Tripodi, A. v. Ex parte Col Johnson Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 7

Re Tripodi, A. v. Ex parte Col Johnson Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 7

The application was dismissed because, although there were some omissions and errors in the Statement of Affairs and in notices to creditors, these were found not to be material or dishonest, and the Court was not satisfied that voiding or terminating the deed would be in the interests of creditors as required under s.222(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The evidence established unlikely prospects of additional assets being recovered if the deed were voided, thus the discretion to make the orders sought was not exercised.

Parties
Debtor: Armando Tripodi; Applicant: Col Johnson Pty. Limited; Trustee: Official Trustee
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 January 1987
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application Under Bankruptcy Act 1966 Part X / Application for Orders to Void/terminate a Deed of Arrangement, Declaration Under S.235, and Sequestration
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Deed of Arrangement, Voidance or Termination of Deed, Creditors Meetings, Omissions/errors in Statement of Affairs, Discretion Under S.222, Interests of Creditors, Bankruptcy Act 1966 Part X
Bankruptcy Deed of Arrangement Voidance or Termination of Deed Creditors Meetings Omissions/errors in Statement of Affairs Discretion Under S.222 Interests of Creditors Bankruptcy Act 1966 Part X

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armando Tripodi

Debtor

Col Johnson Pty. Limited

Applicant

Official Trustee

Trustee

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Application Under Bankruptcy Act 1966 Part X / Application for Orders to Void/terminate a Deed of Arrangement, Declaration Under S.235, and Sequestration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of arrangement should be voided or terminated under ss.222, 235 or 236 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
  2. 2 Whether special resolution to terminate deed was validly passed
  3. 3 Whether the deed was uncertain

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because, although there were some omissions and errors in the Statement of Affairs and in notices to creditors, these were found not to be material or dishonest, and the Court was not satisfied that voiding or terminating the deed would be in the interests of creditors as required under s.222(5) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The evidence established unlikely prospects of additional assets being recovered if the deed were voided, thus the discretion to make the orders sought was not exercised.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the Official Trustee.