Re Matthews, W.M. v. Ex parte Hazet Tools Australia Unit Trust trading as Hazet Tools Australia [1987] FCA 507

Re Matthews, W.M. v. Ex parte Hazet Tools Australia Unit Trust trading as Hazet Tools Australia [1987] FCA 507

The petition was dismissed because: (1) the evidence failed to establish that the debtor was indebted to the petitioning creditor as described; (2) there was an incorrect overstatement of the amount due from interest miscalculation; and (3) the petition was not signed by a person shown to be authorised by the relevant entity. These defects were substantive, could mislead a debtor, and could not be cured under s. 306 of the Bankruptcy Act.

Parties
Debtor: Wayne Maxwell Matthews; Petitioning Creditor: Hazet Tools Australia Unit Trust trading as Hazet Tools Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 1987
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Application for Sequestration Order
Outcome
Petition dismissed; costs awarded to debtor.
Legal Topics
Sequestration Order, Creditor's Petition, Bankruptcy Notice, Defect in Party Description, Interest Miscalculation, Attestation/authorisation of Petition, Compliance With Statutory Provisions, Formal Defect Vs Substantive Defect
Bankruptcy Sequestration Order Creditor's Petition Bankruptcy Notice Defect in Party Description Interest Miscalculation Attestation/authorisation of Petition Compliance With Statutory Provisions +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Maxwell Matthews

Debtor

Hazet Tools Australia Unit Trust trading as Hazet Tools Australia

Petitioning Creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Application for Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debtor is indebted to the petitioning creditor as stated in the petition
  2. 2 Whether defects in the description of the creditor are fatal and incurable under the Bankruptcy Act
  3. 3 Whether overstated interest and inadequate attestation/authorisation render the petition invalid

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was dismissed because: (1) the evidence failed to establish that the debtor was indebted to the petitioning creditor as described; (2) there was an incorrect overstatement of the amount due from interest miscalculation; and (3) the petition was not signed by a person shown to be authorised by the relevant entity. These defects were substantive, could mislead a debtor, and could not be cured under s. 306 of the Bankruptcy Act.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed; costs awarded to debtor.

Orders

  • Petition is dismissed.
  • Judgment creditor to pay debtor's costs, including reserved costs.