Re Hibbard, N.K. v. Ex parte Playroom Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 776

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA GENERAL DIVISION

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND

JUDGMIUIT No. Toy 3B).

toe a

ww

QLD P1606 of 1987

~~

RE: NORMAN KINGSLEY HIBBARD EX PARTE: PLAYROOM PTY. LTD.

v7) F&ar Tag a\ ae GTM oN 4, ,\ MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF ORDER: 18 DECEMBER 1987 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.

The petition for sequestration will be adjourned generally, with liberty to either party to apply to have the matter listed on reasonable notice, provided that 1f no such application is made in the

meantime, the case shall be listed for mention on Monday, 21 March 1988 at 9.30 a.m.

Costs of today be the petitioning creditor's costs in the proceedings.

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.

iad

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) GENERAL DIVISTON

~

QLD P1606 of 1987

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND )

RE: NORMAN _ KINGSLEY HIBBARD EX PARTE: PLAYROOM PTY. LTD.

PINCUS J. 18 DECEMBER 1987

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a creditor's petition for a sequestration order based upon a judgment in the Supreme Court of Queensland given on 18 September 1987 in a sum slightly in excess of $1 million. The judgment debtor has instructed his solicitors to appeal and they have set the processes of appeal in train. However, there seems to have been some dilatoriness, which 1s referred to below. The judgment debtor says that the petition should be adjourned pending the resolution of the appeal, and the creditor, of course, says a

sequestration order should be made now.

The first question is: what is the proper principle to be applied? In a somewhat similar case, namely, Re Lewin and

Glasson; ex parte Milner (1986) 67 A.L.R. 591, I said in effect