Symons v Bateman [1999] FCA 658

Symons v Bateman [1999] FCA 658

The Court declined to make the proposed consent orders under O 35 r 7 because the trustee contended that administration of the estate had occurred, there was no evidence resolving the extent of administration or the need for s 154 protection, and the Court was not persuaded that an O 35 r 7 order was appropriate in those circumstances. The application was adjourned to allow the parties to consider whether another form of order, possibly under s 153B, could be agreed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Application to Set Aside Sequestration Orders Made on a Creditor's Petition / Reasons for Decision on Consent and Associated Orders; Application Adjourned
Outcome
Application adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Legal Topics
['sequestration Order' "creditor's Petition" 'setting Aside Order Made in Absence of Applicants' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'trustee Remuneration and Costs']
['bankruptcy' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['sequestration Order' "creditor's Petition" 'setting Aside Order Made in Absence of Applicants' 'annulment of Bankruptcy' 'trustee Remuneration and Costs']

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 Application to Set Aside Sequestration Orders Made on a Creditor's Petition / Reasons for Decision on Consent and Associated Orders; Application Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sequestration orders made in the absence of the applicants should be set aside under O 35 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules by consent.' 'Whether an order under O 35 r 7 is appropriate where the trustee contends that administration of the bankrupt estate has commenced and seeks protection for remuneration and costs.' 'Whether the parties should instead consider an annulment order under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 with the protective consequences of s 154.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to make the proposed consent orders under O 35 r 7 because the trustee contended that administration of the estate had occurred, there was no evidence resolving the extent of administration or the need for s 154 protection, and the Court was not persuaded that an O 35 r 7 order was appropriate in those circumstances. The application was adjourned to allow the parties to consider whether another form of order, possibly under s 153B, could be agreed.

Court Disposition

Application adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

  • ['The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.']