Piepkorn v Scott [2004] FCA 1617

Piepkorn v Scott [2004] FCA 1617

No circumstance was revealed which now indicates that the sequestration order ought not have been made; none of the matters relied upon by the applicant provide a basis for annulment under s 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Annulment Application Under Bankruptcy Act / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['annulment of Sequestration Order' 'failure to File Statement of Affairs' 'consequences of Bankruptcy' 'jurisdiction of District Court' 'grounds for Annulment']
['bankruptcy'] ['annulment of Sequestration Order' 'failure to File Statement of Affairs' 'consequences of Bankruptcy' 'jurisdiction of District Court' 'grounds for Annulment']

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

Annulment Application Under Bankruptcy Act / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sequestration order made against Ms Piepkorn should be annulled under s 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)' 'Whether the District Court of South Australia had jurisdiction to make the costs order' 'Whether failure to file statement of affairs prevents discharge from bankruptcy']

Ratio Decidendi

No circumstance was revealed which now indicates that the sequestration order ought not have been made; none of the matters relied upon by the applicant provide a basis for annulment under s 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The trustee's costs be paid out of the bankrupt's estate."]