J B Cameron (Victoria) Pty Ltd v Carroll [2000] FCA 289

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

J B Cameron (Victoria) Pty Ltd v Carroll [2000] FCA 289 J B CAMERON (VICTORIA) PTY LTD v GEOFF CARROLL (also known as GEOFFREY MARK CARROLL) V 7449 OF 1999 SUNDBERG J 14 FEBRUARY 2000 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 7449 OF 1999

In the Matter of Geoff Carroll (also known as Geoffrey Mark Carroll)

BETWEEN: J B CAMERON (VICTORIA) PTY LTD

ACN 055 861 240

APPLICANT

AND: GEOFF CARROLL (also known as GEOFFREY MARK CARROLL)

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER: 14 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion notice of which was filed on 17 December 1999 be dismissed. 2. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 7449 OF 1999

In the Matter of Geoff Carroll (also known as Geoffrey Mark Carroll)

BETWEEN: J B CAMERON (VICTORIA) PTY LTD

ACN 055 861 240

APPLICANT

AND: GEOFF CARROLL (also known as

GEOFFREY MARK CARROLL)

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SUNDBERG J

DATE: 14 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE: MELBOURNE

EX‑TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SUNDBERG J 1 This is a motion by the respondent to "set aside" a sequestration order made by Registrar Wood on 9 December last year. I will treat it as an application to review the Registrar's decision. The respondent does not dispute the judgment debt on which the bankruptcy notice, non‑compliance with which is the foundation of the petition, is based. The grounds upon which he relies on the motion are those set out in his notice of intention to oppose the petition. They are, in summary, his poor health, the applicant's rejection of offers of settlement, and that he is mid‑way through attempting to cash in insurance and super policies to enable payment of the debt. No evidence additional to that before the Registrar was adduced. 2 The grounds relied on do not disclose any reason why a sequestration order should not be made. An assertion of solvency was made for the first time today, but it was not supported by any evidence. The respondent complained of what he described as unreasonable conduct on the part of the applicant in pressing for a sequestration order "at all costs", and in not awaiting the finalisation of the realisation of the super and insurance policies. I do not think these complaints are made out. The applicant has consented to the grant of several adjournments so as to enable the respondent to convert the policies into cash, but that has not come to pass. 3 The formal requirements for the making of a sequestration order are satisfied. Nothing that has been put to me today provides a reason why a sequestration order should not be made, and the motion is dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex‑Tempore Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sundberg.