Mackendrick v Lawless [2018] FCA 735

Mackendrick v Lawless [2018] FCA 735

The Court was satisfied on the evidence that the requirements under s 52 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) for making a sequestration order were established. There was no credible evidence justifying going behind the judgment debt as the debt arose from a contested trial and dismissed appeal. The Registrar was aware of the special leave application, and no sufficient cause was shown by the respondent to prevent the making of the order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Creditors Petition for Sequestration Order (bankruptcy) / Application to Review Registrar's Making of Sequestration Order (rehearing)
Outcome
Registrar's order affirmed; review application otherwise dismissed; costs ordered against respondent.
Legal Topics
["creditors' Petition" 'act of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Order' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'going Behind Judgment Debt']
['bankruptcy and Insolvency'] ["creditors' Petition" 'act of Bankruptcy' 'sequestration Order' "review of Registrar's Decision" 'going Behind Judgment 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

Creditors Petition for Sequestration Order (bankruptcy) / Application to Review Registrar's Making of Sequestration Order (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the requirements of s 52 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) for the making of a sequestration order are satisfied' "Whether there is sufficient reason to go behind the judgment debt forming the basis of the creditor's petition" "Whether any sufficient cause has been shown to prevent the making of the sequestration order against the respondent's estate"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied on the evidence that the requirements under s 52 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) for making a sequestration order were established. There was no credible evidence justifying going behind the judgment debt as the debt arose from a contested trial and dismissed appeal. The Registrar was aware of the special leave application, and no sufficient cause was shown by the respondent to prevent the making of the order.

Court Disposition

Registrar's order affirmed; review application otherwise dismissed; costs ordered against respondent.

Orders

  • ["The Registrar's order made 28 August 2017 is affirmed." "The respondent's application for review is otherwise dismissed." "The respondent is to pay the applicants' costs to be assessed if not agreed."]