Re Howard M.J. v Ex parte Gall Stanfield & Tiley [1995] FCA 198

Re Howard M.J. v Ex parte Gall Stanfield & Tiley [1995] FCA 198

A sequestration order was appropriate because the debt was valid, the $160 was not demonstrated to be fictitious, the petition was properly served in accordance with statutory requirements, and there was no binding agreement preventing the creditor from proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Creditor's Petition / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Sequestration order made against the estate of the debtor.
Legal Topics
["creditor's Petition" 'sequestration Order' 'service of Petition' 'acknowledgment of Debt']
['bankruptcy'] ["creditor's Petition" 'sequestration Order' 'service of Petition' 'acknowledgment of Debt']

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

Creditor's Petition / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the amount claimed in the creditor's petition was fictitious" 'Whether the petition was properly served']

Ratio Decidendi

A sequestration order was appropriate because the debt was valid, the $160 was not demonstrated to be fictitious, the petition was properly served in accordance with statutory requirements, and there was no binding agreement preventing the creditor from proceeding.

Court Disposition

Sequestration order made against the estate of the debtor.

Orders

  • ['A sequestration order be made against the estate of the debtor.' "The petitioning creditor's costs of and incidental to the petition, including reserved costs, be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966."]