a S JUDGMENT No, 250./. 2%. CATCHWORDS Bankruptcy - Proceedings in connexion with sequestration - Bankruptcy notice - Form and contents - Order for costs of interlocutory applications in a proceeding in Magistrates' Court (vic.) and the final order in that proceeding included in one notice - Notice invalid. Bankruptcy Act 1966 - ss. 40(1)(g), 40(3)(b), 41 In re Wheeler [1982] 1 W.L.R. 175 dist. In re Low; Ex parte Argentine Gold Fields Ltd. [1891] 1 Q.B. 147 oll. Re Appl ication for Issue of a Bankruptcy Notice; Ex parte Tinson B.C. oll. RE: MARGARET CAROLINE STEPHENSON (also known as MARGARET CAROLINE WATSON) EX PARTE: CINTEE NOMINEES PTY. LTD. No. P978 of 1987 Jenkinson J. Melbourne 10 May, 1988 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA GENERAL DIVISION BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF VICTORIA RE No. P978 of 1987 : MARGARET CAROLINE STEPHENSON also nown as GAR CAROLINE WATSON) Judgement Debtor EX PARTE: CINTEE NOMINEES PTY. LTD. Judgement Creditor MINUTES OF ORDER CORAM: Jenkinson J. PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 10 May, 1988 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The petition be dismissed. 2. The debtor's costs of the petition including costs reserved be taxed and paid by the petitioner. (NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by 0.36 of the Federal Court Rules) dae IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA T BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE F VI CORAM: PLACE: DATE: ) GENERAL DIVISION } No. P978 of 1987 ) also nown as CAROLINE WATSON) Judgement Debtor EX PARTE: CINTEE NOMINEES PTY. Judgement Creditor Jenkinson J. Melbourne 10 May, 1988 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Hearing of a creditor's bankruptcy petition. MARGARET CAROLINE STEPHENSON MARGARET LTD. The petition is founded on a bankruptcy notice, the material part whereof reads: "WHEREAS CINTEE NOMINEES PTY. LTD. of 7 Dixon Court, Greensborough (hereinafter referred to as 'the judgement creditor') has claimed that the sum of $5,879.22 is due by you to it under final Orders obtained by against you in the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court on 29th day of April, 1987 and the 26th day of May, 1987 being Orders the execution of which has not been stayed: THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE that within 28 days after service of this notice on you, excluding the day on which this notice is served on you, you are required:- (a) to pay the sum of $5,879.22 so claimed by as 2. the judgement creditor to the judgement creditor; or (b) to secure the payment of the sum referred to in the last preceding paragraph to the satisfaction of the Federal Court of Australia or the judgement creditor or compound the sum so specified to the satisfaction of the judgement creditor." (The word "it" has been omitted from the phrase "obtained by against you.) It appeared by the document filed pursuant to Rule 7(2)(a)(4iL) of the Bankruptcy Rules that in the one proceeding in the Magistrates' Court at Heidelberg between the petitioner as complainant and the debtor as defendant an order had been made on 29 April 1987 that the debtor pay the petitioner the costs of certain chamber applications, fixed at $200, and other orders had been made on 26 May 1987, namely that the debtor pay the petitioner $4,353.68 and $117.54 and $1,148. According to assertions in the petition the sum of $117.54 was in respect of interest and the sum of $1,148 was for costs. Those four sums aggregate $5,879.22, in which sum the debtor is alleged in the petition to be indebted "for monies owing for rental". It may be supposed that it was $4,354.68 which was owed "for rental". There is no indication that anything in the nature of the "channelling", of several orders into one order, of which Lawton L.J. spoke in In re Wheeler [(1982] 1 W.L.R. 175, had effected a conjugation of the order made in April and the orders made in May. In that case several orders for costs had been made by a judge of the High Court on the day he delivered judgment in 3. the action in which the orders were made. OQne order was expressed to be for the costs of the action and each of the three others was expressed to be for the costs of a procedure summons taken out during the course of the action. Hach order was for payment by two defendants of the two plaintiffs' costs. A composite bill of the costs ordered to be paid under the four orders was taxed as to parts thereof and an interim certificate was issued by the taxing officer. It was objected that a bankruptcy notice, directed by the two plaintiffs to one of the two defendants, requiring payment of the amount certified was defective in that the amount specified in the notice was due under four orders, not under one order. The Court of Appeal overruled the objection on the ground that it was a consequence of the issue of the interim certificate that "those four orders were channelled into the interim certificate so as to constitute one order" ((1982] 1 W.L.R. at 182). Mr. Irlicht, who appeared on the hearing of the petition for the debtor, raised essentially the same objection to the bankruptcy notice founding this petition, that the amount specified in the notice was due under two orders, not under one order. Neither in the Court of Appeal nor in the submissions of Mr. Lawson, who appeared for the petitioner, was there a denial of the proposition, for which In re Low; Ex parte Argentine Gold Fields Ltd. [1891] 1 Q.B. 147 and Re Application for Issue of a Bankruptcy Notice; Ex parte Tinson (1946) 14 A.B.Cc. 41 are authorities, that no more than one "final judgment or final order" may be the subject of a bankruptcy notice. The order of April for payment of costs fixed at $200 was enforceable in the same manner as a final judgment in an action, quite separately from any other 4. order in the proceeding in the Magistrates' Court, and is deemed by s.40(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act to be a final judgment. In my opinion the bankruptcy notice is defective. The petition must be dismissed with costs. I certify that this and the 3 preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Jenkinson. Dated: 10 May, 1988 Counsel for Petitioner Mr. R.A. Lawson, Solicitor Solicitors for Petitioner Simon Watkins & Co. Counsel for Debtor Mr. T. Irlicht, Solicitor Solicitors for Debtor Irlicht & Broberg Date of Hearing : 10 February, 1988