ZE4 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) gp! GENERAL DIVISION re ) ora BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND ) QLD P788 of 1986 RE: JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON and MAXENE SUSAN JACKSON EX PARTE: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED QLD P1337 of 1986 RE: JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON EX PARTE: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 6 JULY 1987 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The costs of National Westminster Finance Australia Limited, limited to the sum of $2,000, be paid as petitioning creditor's costs under s.109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules. Mt -t ~. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA GENERAL DIVISION ) BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND ~ ~ QLD P788 of 1986 RE: JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON and MAXENE SUSAN JACKSON EX PARTE: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED QLD P1337 of 1986 RE: JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON EX PARTE: NATIONAL WESTMINSTER FINANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED PINCUS J. 6 JULY 1987 EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In this matter a rather complicated dispute has arisen with respect to costs. There are the costs of two parties involved. One 1s National Westminster Finance Australia Limited, which has issued two petitions, and the other is Sterling Industries Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed). It seems to me that, insofar as Sterling Industries Limited's costs are concerned, they really depended upon success in the petition. As has been pointed out, the orders which have been made did not entitle them to any costs; they merely entitled them to have such priority as the petitioning creditors got under s.109(1)(a). tia te BNP The question whether they get any costs at all is another matter. Their purpose seems to have been to achieve the result, as Mr. Sullivan has said, of forcing a disgorgement of the $3 million otherwise than through bankruptcy proceedings, and I think he is correct in saying their purpose has failed, through no fault of theirs really, but it has failed because of the High Court's order. The position of the petitioning creditor is complicated by the fact that it issued two petitions because of its uncertainty as to whether or not it could succeed on one of them only. The other complication, of course, 1s that in the end it has not got a sequestration order, and therefore the orders which I previously made, as making provision for its interim costs, are dependent upon its getting costs as the successful petitioning creditor. There 1s some justice, it seems to me, in the petitioning creditor's case, in that it did not have any certainty of a bankruptcy ensuing, the debtor's petition having been held up by the order made enjoining acceptance of it. That order was made because it was thought designed to prevent the order as to payment into court having effect, and the purpose of the petitioning creditor was to cut through all that and achieve an earlier bankruptcy, a purpose in which it substantially failed. On the whole, I think that I should make these orders, and they are the orders I will make: that as to the costs of National Westminster Finance Australia Limited, I order that those costs, limited to the sum of $2,000, be paid as petitioning creditor's costs under s.109(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act, so that it will have priority in respect of those costs, limited to $2,000, as if 1t had successfully petitioned. In the circumstances, I do not propose to make any order for costs in respect of Sterling Industries Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed). It will have to bear its own costs. Fa i) aitify that thic ard toe " preceding cages are a true cosy of the reasons fer 4dszment nerein of His Kencur ot Mr Justice Pincus He eto] Dated b July 487