Federal Court of Australia
it] THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NOW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. P1170 of 1286 GENERAL DIVISION )
IN THE MATTER of the Bankruptcy Act 1966
RE: JOHN LATTER EX PARTE: HUNT BROTHERS LIMITED
CORAM: Evatt J
DATE: 20 October 1986 PLACE: Sydney
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The creditor's petition herein which was presented on 18 July 1986 was listed for hearing on 30 September 1986. When the matter was called on for hearing Mr Watson, Solicitor, appeared for the petitioning creditor and Mr Johnson, Solicitor, appeared
for the debtor.
Mr Johnson then indicated to the Court that
Yesterday (that 13 29 September 1986) there was a meeting of creditors at which a composition was approved by those creditors. My application on behalf of the debtor today would be for the dismissal of the petition. I understand my friend, Mr Watson, has an application regarding costs.
7 AUS 1 LIA
' "ad
"| - mn pee ant 4 ~ 67 '4 ry l- ma! FEDE™4I 7 TOR OL
'
tu
Mr Johnson then indicated that he had filed an affidavit sworn by himself that morning in the matter. After reading that affidavit
the Court was informed by Mr Watson that
My client (the petitioning creditor) did not receive notice of the (creditor's) meeting. However, notwithstanding that, I have seen the Statement of Affairs and given the facts disclosed in the Statement of Affairs which 1s exhibited to
my friend's affidavit, my instructions are to consent to the
dismissal of the petition. However, this is the third time un which the petition has been listed for hearing. On each
previous occasion the creditor has been ready to proceed.
On being asked as to whether his client had been paid out, Mr Watson indicated that that was not the position and that therefore his client would rank as an unsecured creditor in the composition. Mr Watson then sought an order for costs and that those costs be paid in the same priority as the costs referred to in the special resolution which 1s annexure "JTJ 2" of the affidavit of Mr Johnson; that 15, an order that the petitioner's costs be paid in the same priority as the costs of Johnson and Co as referred to as Item C in the special resolution in the Form
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate