Federal Court of Australia
pected [asenvercenes 2
vludgoment No. S|,
CATCHWORDS
BANKRUPTCY - application for annulment - meaning of "sequestration order ought not to have been made" - distinction between facts existing at time of sequestration
order and facts later coming into existence - exercise of
discretion to annul the bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 ss.52(2)(a), 154(1)(a).
Re Scott (1975 6 A.L.R. 558 Re Griffiths; Ex parte Huntley (1892) 3 B.C. (N.S.W.) 6
RE; KENNETH JOHNSON and DIANNE JOHNSON NO. W 1746 OF 1986
Jackson J. Sydney 5 February 1987
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GENERAL DIVISION
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF
NEW SOUTH WALES AND
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
RE
CORAM: JACKSON J. DATE: 5 February 1987 PLACE: Sydney
No. W 1746 of 1986
KENNETH JOHNSON and
DIANNE JOHNSON
Applicants
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The bankruptcies brought about order made in the case of each be annulled.
24 November 1986,
Note:
Settlement and entry of orders 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.
by the seguestration of the applicants on
1s dealt with in Rule
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GENERAL DIVISION
) ) ) ) BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF ) No. W 1746 of 1986 ) NEW SOUTH WALES AND )
)
)
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
RE: KENNETH JOHNSON and DIANNE JOHNSON
Applicants
CORAM: JACKSON J. DATE: 5 February 1987 PLACE: Sydney
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicants are husband and wife who have at all material times carried on a business in partnership involving the supply of parts and installation of equipment associated with the conversion of motor vehicles to the use of gas as
fuel.
2.
The applicants were made bankrupt by a sequestration order made on 24 November 1986. They were not present or represented at the hearing of the creditor's petition which led to the making of the sequestration order, and it may be that their lack of diligence in that regard in relation to their own affairs was contributed to by the fact that on 16 August 1986 the male applicant had suffered relatively serious injuries 1n a motor accident. Whatever be the reason for the failure of the applicants to oppose the making of the sequestration order, I am satisfied that 1f the applicants had placed before the court on that occasion the true facts as to their financial situation, those facts would have demonstrated
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