Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bridges Financial Services Pty Ltd, in the matter of Bell v Bell [1999] FCA 1767
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM STUART BELL BRIDGES FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD v WILLIAM STUART BELL N7249 OF 1999 EMMETT J 6 DECEMBER 1999 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N7249 OF 1999
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM STUART BELL
BETWEEN: BRIDGES FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED
APPLICANT
AND: WILLIAM STUART BELL
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 6 DECEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of William Stuart Bell.
2. The petitioner's costs, including any costs that have been reserved, be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N7249 OF 1999
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM STUART BELL
BETWEEN: BRIDGES FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED
APPLICANT
AND: WILLIAM STUART BELL
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE: 6 DECEMBER 1999
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me for hearing a bankruptcy petition filed on 3 March 1999. The petition seeks a sequestration order in respect of the estate of William Stuart Bell. The Petitioner is Bridges Financial Services Pty Limited ("Bridges"). The petition is based upon an act of bankruptcy alleged to have been committed on 10 February 1999 when Mr Bell failed to comply with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice served on him on 20 January 1999 or to satisfy the court, at that stage, that he had a counter-claim, set off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the sum specified in the bankruptcy notice. The bankruptcy notice itself was founded on a final judgment in the sum of $24,036.15, obtained against Mr Bell in the Local Court at Sydney on 18 May 1998. 2 The petition was returnable in the Court on 29 March 1999. A notice of appearance was filed on behalf of Mr Bell on 29 March 1999, together with a notice of intention to oppose the petition. The notice of intention to oppose the petition specified eight separate grounds. The petition was stood over to 12 April 1999. On that day, directions were given that the matter be referred to a judge. Directions were also given for affidavits to be filed by the parties. 3 The matter first came before me on 7 May 1999 when I was informed that certain of the grounds of opposition would not be pursued. The remaining grounds were as follows: "1. The respondent debtor has a counter-claim, set off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt, being a counter-claim, set off or cross demand that the respondent debtor could not have set up in the action or proceeding in which the judgment was obtained.
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