Turnbull, Re; John v Pongrass Operations Pty Ltd Ex Parte; [1988] FCA 418

Not tor distribution

von AIS, 88

JUBCME IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) GENERAL DIVISION ) QLD PET NO. 782 of 1988 BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND ) RE: JOHN TURNBULL Debtor EX PARTE: PONGRASS OPERATIONS PTY.LTD. Creditor

SPENDER J. BRISBANE

22 JULY 1988

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application made to the Court on behalf of John Turnbull, who was the respondent to a creditor's petition No.782 of 1988. The application before me is that the sequestration order made by Deputy District Registrar Allen this

morning be rescinded, or, alternatively, discharged.

The basis of the application seems to be, as deposed to by the affidavits of Robert Douglas Backstrom and Brett St. Clair Bolton that, notwithstanding the service of a creditor's petition on Mr. Turnbull on 29 June 1988, returnable on 22 July 1988 (this morning), the facts were that on 15 July 1988 Mr. Turnbull and his wife, Carolyn Turnbull, had signed an authority pursuant to

s.188 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. This authorized one Peter

David Rodgers, a member of the firm of Love and Rodgers, of St. Martin's Tower, 31 Market Street, Sydney, to call a meeting of the creditors of Mr. and Mrs. Turnbull pursuant to Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, and to take control of their property in accordance with that part. A further basis deposed to is that a meeting of creditors pursuant to that authority had been called for and will be held on Thursday, 11 August 1988 at 2.30 p.m. No notices of that meeting have, as yet, been despatched to the

creditors of Mr. and Mrs. Turnbull.

That is the extent of the material touching upon the reasons why the sequestration order made this morning by Deputy Registrar Allen, pursuant to s.31A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 should be rescinded or discharged. Mr. Backstrom deposes that this morning before the Registrar he told Mr. Allen that the debtor had entered into an arrangement with creditors which required a meeting of creditors to be held and that an adjournment was sought of the petitioning creditor's petition so that the meeting might go ahead. Solicitors for the petitioning creditor informed the Deputy Registrar that their instructions were to proceed with the petition. The material shows that the Deputy Registrar said that there was not sufficient grounds on the material before him to order an adjournment of the petition,