Federal Court of Australia
~
. JUDGMENT No, 2207.85...
was
CATCHWORDS
Bankruptcy - proposed deed of assignment under Part X of Bankruptcy Act 1966 - Debtor's former wife claiming to be a creditor under approved maintenance agreement - whether entitled
to vote at meeting of creditors in respect of particular claims -
Bankruptcy Act, ss.82(1A), 198.
MICHAEL ANTHONY ZANTIOTIS v. WILLIAM EDWARD ANDREW (First Respondent and KATY ZANTIOTIS (Second Respondent)
No. W345 of 1987X
Beaumont J Sydney 17 May 1988
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GENERAL DIVISION
) ) BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF ) No. W345 of 1987X ) THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND )
)
)
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: MICHAEL ANTHONY ZANTIOTIS
Applicant
AND: WILLIAM EDWARD ANDREW First Respondent KATY ZANTIOTIS
Second Respondent
CORAM: BEAUMONT J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 13 MAY 1988
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT the application is dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GENERAL DIVISION
THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND
) ) BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF ) No. W345 of 1987X ) ) ) )
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: MICHAEL ANTHONY ZANTIOTIS
Applicant
AND: WILLIAM EDWARD ANDREW First Respondent KATY ZANTIOTIS
Second Respondent
CORAM: BEAUMONT J PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 17 MAY 1988
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (No. 2) (ON THE SUBSTANTIVE APPLICATION)
Introduction
The background facts in this matter are outlined in the earlier reasons for judgment (18 December 1987) overruling an objection to competency. On 11 December 1987 the applicant, Mr. Zantiotis, filed an amended application seeking: (1) a declaration that the first respondent, Mr. Andrew, his trustee, incorrectly admitted the second respondent, Mrs. Zantiotis, his
former wife, to be admitted to vote in respect of an amount of
2.
$135,789.00 at a meeting of the applicant's creditors held on 9 September 1987 in respect of a motion that the applicant execute a deed of assignment under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 ("the Act"); (2) alternatively, a declaration that the second respondent's entitlement to vote at the said meeting was in respect of the sum of $5,199.96 only. The applicant also seeks (3) a declaration that the applicant's creditors passed a motion
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