Rr pe Judgement Nov. /f Br. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND ) RE: JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON AND MAXENE: SUSAN JACKSON EX PARTE: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED QLD PET P1337 of 1986 RE: COHN WILLIAM JACKSON EX PARTE: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE _OF' ORDER: 3 FEBRUARY 1987 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: l. 2. The hearing of the petition be adjourned further until 13 March 1987. The costs of the petitioning creditor, National Westminster Finance Australia Limited, and of the intervening creditor, Stirling Industries Limited, being costs of and incidental to the appearance today be given priority and treated as if they were petitioning creditor's costs falling under s.109(1)(a) of the Act. The costs of and incidental to the hearing before Mr. Justice Spender on 20 November 1986 incurred by Stirling Industries Limited be given priority and treated as if they were petitioning creditor's costs falling under s.109(1)(a) of the Act. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND ) ~ QLD PET P788 of 1986 RE: JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON AND MAXENE SUSAN JACKSON EX PARTE: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED QLD PET P1337 of 1986 RE: JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON EX PARTE: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED PINCUS J. 3 FEBRUARY 1987 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is an application for adjournment of a_ creditor's petition. The circumstances relating to it are set out in reasons for judgment given by Mr. Justice Spender on 20 November 1986, and I do not propose to recapitulate them. The essence is that one creditor of Mr. John William Jackson, namely, National Westminster Finance Australia Limited, has petitioned and desires that Mr. Jackson be made bankrupt. Another intervening creditor, namely, Stirling Industries Limited, receivers and managers appointed, takes the view that its interests and, it says, those of other creditors, will be best served by the petition being adjourned. Since the matter was before Mr. Justice Spender on 20 November 1986, the circumstances appear to have changed only in one respect, namely, in that the High Court of Australia has given special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Full Court of this court upholding the order of Mr. Justice Sheppard, that order having been made on 23 April 1986. The substantive hearing of the appeal to the High Court is shortly to take place and the only question which I have to consider is whether the petition should be further adjourned until a date after that hearing. It seems to be agreed that if it is to be adjourned, a convenient date is 13 March 1987. The arguments which have been put forward by Mr. Sullivan on behalf of the petitioning creditor are much the same as those which were dealt with at length by Mr. Justice Spender. Counsel for the petitioning creditor has emphasized that it 1s difficult to predict the future course of events. There may, for example, be considerable delay inthe High Court's reaching a conclusion, and he places' reliance on the awkwardness of perhaps adjourning the petition again and again, waiting for the High Court's decision. That argument was, however, one which was undoubtedly placed before Mr. Justice Spender. His Honour said at p.25 of his reasons: "IT am of the view that, on balance, it would better serve the interests of the creditors generally if the hearing of the petitioning creditor's petition be adjourned so as to enable the opportunity of the committal proceedings to be further explored without the shackles that would attend that application if a sequestration order were now made." If it is correct (and I think I should assume that it is) that the interests of the creditors were better served by adjourning the matter in November, unless some supervening factor has come into existence to make it clear that a further adjournment is inappropriate, I think I should adopt the same attitude as did Mr. Justice Spender and, rather than attempt to rebalance the nebulous possibilities, should adjourn the matter further. I would add that I do so on the assumption that it is likely that the result will be that the matter will be adjourned, if necessary, from time to time until the High Court's decision is known. However, 1t is plain that I cannot bind the court to do so on any future occasion and I do not undertake, myself, to do so, if I am the one who has the task of determining whether it should be further adjourned. It will therefore be ordered that the hearing of the petition be adjourned further until 13 March 1987. Each of the parties before me - that is, the petitioning creditor and the intervening creditor, Stirling Industries Limited, receivers and managers appointed asks for an order that the costs of and incidental to the appearance today be given priority. I think Tf should do that and will order that those costs be treated as petitioning creditor's costs in the proceedings, so as to fall within s.109(1)(a) of the Act. an > I further direct that the costs of and incidental to the hearing before Mr. Justice Spender on 20 November 1986 incurred by Stirling Industries Limited and reserved by his Honour be similarly treated; that is, be treated as if they were petitioning creditor's casts falling within s.109(1)(a) of the Act. re) L, AM nh . PCSoCINg