Re Bendel, David Ex Parte Lowe Lippmann (a firm) [1996] FCA 262

Re Bendel, David Ex Parte Lowe Lippmann (a firm) [1996] FCA 262

The debtor did not establish that it was fair, appropriate, proper or in the interests of justice to adjourn or postpone the petitioning creditor's prima facie entitlement to a sequestration order. The proposed Part X arrangement was unsatisfactory because of serious questions about the debtor's assets and creditors, the role of family or friendly creditors, possible prejudice to the petitioning creditor, uncertainty and minimal benefit to creditors, and unaddressed external debts. The Court accepted the process server's evidence that the Bankruptcy Notice was served on 11 January 1996, found the alleged act of bankruptcy proved, and made a sequestration order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Creditor's Petition / Hearing of Creditor's Petition and Debtor's Application for Adjournment
Outcome
Adjournment application refused; sequestration order made against the estate of David Bendel; petitioning creditor's costs ordered to be paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (C'th); injunctions against John M. Sparke discharged.
Legal Topics
["creditor's Petition" 'sequestration Order' 'part X Arrangement' 'authority Under S.188' 'service of Bankruptcy Notice' 'adjournment Discretion']
['bankruptcy' 'insolvency'] ["creditor's Petition" 'sequestration Order' 'part X Arrangement' 'authority Under S.188' 'service of Bankruptcy Notice' 'adjournment Discretion']

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 Creditor's Petition / Hearing of Creditor's Petition and Debtor's Application for Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing of the creditor's petition should be adjourned under s.33(1)(a) to allow creditors to consider the debtor's Part X proposal." "Whether the debtor's Part X proposal was fair, bona fide and likely to benefit creditors." 'Whether a Bankruptcy Notice was served on the debtor before the petition was issued.' 'Whether the statutory preconditions for a sequestration order were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The debtor did not establish that it was fair, appropriate, proper or in the interests of justice to adjourn or postpone the petitioning creditor's prima facie entitlement to a sequestration order. The proposed Part X arrangement was unsatisfactory because of serious questions about the debtor's assets and creditors, the role of family or friendly creditors, possible prejudice to the petitioning creditor, uncertainty and minimal benefit to creditors, and unaddressed external debts. The Court accepted the process server's evidence that the Bankruptcy Notice was served on 11 January 1996, found the alleged act of bankruptcy proved, and made a sequestration order.

Court Disposition

Adjournment application refused; sequestration order made against the estate of David Bendel; petitioning creditor's costs ordered to be paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (C'th); injunctions against John M. Sparke discharged.

Orders

  • ['A sequestration order be made against the estate of David Bendel.' "The petitioning creditor's costs of and incidental to the petition in this matter be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (C'th)." 'The injunctions granted herein on 17 April 1996 and varied on 18 April 1996 against John M....