Shlakht v Nissan Finance Corporation Limited [1991] FCA 943
Federal Court of Australia
Full text
Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
N D: RT OF Al
ECE ae I No VP 621 of 1990
GENERAL DIVISION
RE: MARC SHLAKHT
(Judgment Debtor)
EX PARTE: Nis FINANCE
ie) ION LIMITED
{Judgment Creditor)
Coram: Ryan J
Date: 26 June 1991
Piace: Melbourne
+ IN. R 'D NT
RYAN J.: In this matter, I am satisfied, and, indeed, there
is no dispute, that the matters stated in the petition have
been proved, as has service of the petition and the fact that
the debt on which the petitioning creditor relies is still
owing. Accordingly, the petitioning creditor has a prima
facie right to a sequestration order unless the court is
satisfied by the debtor in terms of s.52 (2) of the Act that
he is able to pay his debts.
The evidence discloses that the debtor is possessed of
significant assets, the most substantial of which he owns
jointly with his wife and his nephew, respectively. The
debtor conducts a business in partnership with that nephew as
a stall holder at the Caribbean Markets. I am invited by
counsel for the debtor to infer that a second mortgage on the
jointly owned matrimonial home could readily be obtained to
pay, in particular, the petitioning creditor's debt.
2.
However, the Court is bound in considering ability to pay
debts in accordance with s.52 (2) to take account not only of
the debt due to the petitioning creditor but of debts
disclosed as due to other creditors.
I do not regard this case as one coming within the principles
of Re Sarina ex parte Council of the Shire of Wollondilly
(1980) 43 FLR. 163 in which the petition was dismissed because
the Court was satisfied that the debtor was plainly solvent
and contumaciously refused to pay the petitioning creditor's
debt. I also decline to draw the inference, which Counsel for
the debtor suggested, that the debtor is presently able to pay
all of his current debts by raising further money on the
security of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.
In all the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the debtor
has discharged the onus of proving present ability to pay his
debts and, accordingly, there must be a sequestration order.
I shall stay all proceedings pursuant to the sequestration
order for 21 days from this day and order that the petitioning
creditor's costs, including any reserved costs, be taxed and
paid in accordance with the statute.
I certify that this and the
preceding page are a true copy
ef the Reasons for Judqment of
His Honour Mr Justice Ryan.
Associate: Gmande CBira.,
Date: 26 June (79/
Related laws
No related documents linked yet.
You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.