Johnson, K & D. [1987] FCA 57
The sequestration orders ought not to have been made because the applicants were, at the time, able to pay their debts, and this fact was not before the court due to their failure to appear. The court exercised its discretion under s.154(1)(a) to annul the bankruptcies, considering the circumstances including the male applicant's injury.
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenneth Johnson; Applicant: Dianne Johnson
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 February 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Bankruptcy Annulment Application / Application for Annulment of Sequestration Order
- Outcome
- bankruptcy annulled
- Legal Topics
- Annulment of Bankruptcy, Sequestration Order, Exercise of Discretion
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kenneth Johnson
Applicant
Dianne Johnson
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Annulment Application / Application for Annulment of Sequestration Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sequestration order ought not to have been made under s.154(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
- 2 Whether facts existing at the time of the sequestration order but not before the court justify annulment
- 3 Whether the court's discretion should be exercised to annul the bankruptcies
Ratio Decidendi
The sequestration orders ought not to have been made because the applicants were, at the time, able to pay their debts, and this fact was not before the court due to their failure to appear. The court exercised its discretion under s.154(1)(a) to annul the bankruptcies, considering the circumstances including the male applicant's injury.
Court Disposition
bankruptcy annulled
Orders
- The bankruptcies brought about by the sequestration order made in the case of each of the applicants on 24 November 1986 be annulled.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment