Re O'Brien, T.T. v. Ex parte Public Transport Corporation [1994] FCA 997

JUDGMENT No. suet 17, OF

enedecssscee

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. VP 958 of 1994 ) )

GENERAL DIVISTON

RE

TERENCE THOMAS O'BRIEN Judgment debtor

EX PARTE: PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGE : Heerey J

DATE: 30 November 1994

PLACE: Melbourne

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have decided that this application for an adjournment should

be refused. I will give my reasons.

The petitioning creditor obtained a judgment on 1 July 1991 for rent due in respect of premises leased to the debtor for use as an office 1n connection with his practice as a solicitor. The amount of the judgment was $24,841.94. The judgment creditor obtained the issue of a bankruptcy notice on 15 November 1991, and the subsequent petition came on for hearing on 20 July 1992. A compromise was negotiated between counsel for the petitioning creditor and the debtor himself, on terms that the debtor would pay within 14 days the amount sought in the bankruptcy notice, that is, $24,841.94, together with interest of $3726.29 and costs of $2250, amounting to a total of $30,819.23, and if that amount was not paid the client would be at liberty to commence further bankruptcy

proceedings.

- SOUAT ne

FEDEF'

& ayy! SE

Sonia,

fmended judgments as requested- plus diskette

With the Gompliments of

Ma fiatie PC. Sowoy

(200 -2F }008 -9S7 \

1003 GG JUDGES CHAMBERS, FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA, 450 LITTLE BOURKE STREET, MELBOURNE 3000

It was a-further term of the agreement for compromise that if payment of $15,000 was received within 14 days, along with a

commitment to provide the balance of the money owing within a further 14 days, the creditor "would be prepared to entertain

further indulgence."

The petition was by consent dismissed. It appears that counsel for the petitioning creditor recognised that there was a flaw in the bankruptcy notice. It may be, as the debtor now says, that that was not revealed to him, but it does not seem to me that that fact invalidates the compromise that was