Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT NO. saree! OSE? set cbaee
CATCHWORDS
BANKRUPTCY - sequestration order - whether "other sufficient cause" to Justify the Court refusing to make order
Bankruptcy Act 1966 -s 52 Public Trustee Act 1978 - s 95
Fitzpatrick v Jackson (1989) 2 Qd R 542 Cons Re Bond Ex parte Hong Kong Bank of Austraha Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 426 Refd
23 DEC 1994
FEDERAL COURT OF
AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL,
Re Donald James Cameron, Ex parte Westpac Banking Corporation QP2277 of 1994
Kiefel J... Brisbane, 21 December 1994
IN T EDE COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. QP2277 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
RE: DONALD JAMES CAMERON
Debtor
EX PARTE: WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION Petitioning Creditor
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Kiefei J
DATE OF ORDER': 21 December 1994 WHERE MADE: Brisbane MINUTES OF ORDERS T ORDER
1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of the debtor Donald James Cameron.
2. "The petitioning creditor's costs of and incidental to the petition in this matter (including' reserved costs) be taxed and paid m accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
PPM a
'Date of Commission of Act of Bankruptcy: 4 October 1994 = b a '
can t,o feat
" ay ' ' NOTE:"' ' Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.
oy re
Ay AUSTRALIA yr SSPUEKEE
With the Compliments of Sutue SM Hef
marr, OP 2277/2 RY12/ 39)
JUDGES' CHAMBERS
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 119 NORTH QUAY
BRISBANE 4000
AUSTRALIA
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. QP2277 of 1994 GENERAL DIVISION
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
RE: DONALD JAMES CAMERON Debtor EX PARTE: WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION etitioni it
CORAM: Kiefel J DATE: 21 December 1994 PLACE: Bnsbane
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The petitioning creditor seeks an order for sequestration, the petition being founded on a failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice which required the debtor to pay or secure the amount of a Judgment with respect to costs made on 27 November 1992 in the Supreme Court of Queensland and which costs were taxed and certified as due on 15 August 1994. The Order was consequent upon the decision of the Senior Judge Administrator dismissing Mr Cameron's writ as a nullity, it being the case that he was at the time of its institution a prisoner in custody and therefore required the consent of the Public Trustee under s.95 of the Public Trustee Act 1978 as amended to the bringing of the action. One basis for the applicant's submission that the Court ought now decline to make a sequestration order was that he mtends to bring an appeal from that decision, although no application has as yet been made, as would be necessary, for an extension of the tume for the institution of that appeal. Mr Cameron's point was that there exists authority in England to the effect that the necessary consent could be given
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