Re Novackis, Mara Ex parte Bank of New Zealand v Taylor, Barry Keith & Anor [1980] FCA 164

CATCHWORDS

Bankruptcy - composition under Part X - Chairman's Certificate under s.204 prima facie evidence by reason of s 225(3) as amended by s.122 of the Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1980 - displaced by evidence of wrongful exclusion of applicant creditor from voting - The Court declares pursuant to s.222(2) as amended, that the composition is void.

Re : MARA NOVACKIS Debtor Ex parte * BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Applicant

BARRY KEITH TAYLOR an A NOVACKIs Respondents

C. A. Sweeney, J 30 October 1980.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. 166 of 1980 X GENERAL DIVISION

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE QF VICTORIA

e ee > Re MARA NOVACKIS Debtor Ex parte BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Applicant BARRY KEITH TAYLOR and MARA NOVACKIS Respondents ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER; C. A Sweeney, d. DATE OF ORDER} 30 October 1980 WHERE MADE: Melbourne. THE COURT ORDERS THAT} ° 1. The Court makes an order declaring the composition, the

subject of the application, .to be void on the ground specified in paragraph 2(a) thereof.

2. It 1s further ordered that the respondents pay the

applicant's costs of and incidental to the application, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

3 Liberty to apply 1s reserved to all parties

rrr nenmnnemnmn

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. 166 of 1980 X GENERAL DIVISION

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA

Re . MARA NOVACKIS Debtor Ex parte H BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Applicant

BARRY KEITH TAYIOR and MARA NOVACKIS

Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 30 October, 1980 C oA, SWFENY J.

In this application, as amended, the Bank

of New Zealand (the applicant) sought the following orders -

"1. An order under section 239 Bankruptcy Act 1966 setting aside a composition under Part X of the Act purportedly accepted on 14th July, 1980 by creditors of the debtor Mara Novackis on the following grounds,

— rn

(a) that the applicant was wrongly cxcluded from voting on the special resolution proposing the composition, which resolution would not have been passcd had the applicant not been so ecacluded and that those circumstances conslitutc an 'other reason' for the purposes of sub-section 239(2) of the Act why the composition ought to be set aside, further or alternatively