Coroma Industries Ltd v Piepkorn [2000] FCA 319

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Caroma Industries Ltd v Piepkorn [2000] FCA 319 CAROMA INDUSTRIES LTD (ACN 000 189 499) v HENRIETTE PIEPKORN S 7219 OF 1999 MANSFIELD J 13 MARCH 2000

ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 7219 OF 1999

BETWEEN: CAROMA INDUSTRIES LTD

(ACN 000 189 499)

Applicant

AND: HENRIETTE PIEPKORN

Respondent

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE: 13 MARCH 2000

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application by Caroma Industries Ltd ("Caroma") for a sequestration order against the estate of Henriette Piepkorn ("Ms Piepkorn") made on 16 December 1999. It is based upon an act of bankruptcy committed on 15 August 1999, namely the failure to comply with the bankruptcy notice issued on 25 June 1999 and served on 25 July 1999 in respect of a debt of $2,598.17 plus interest calculated in accordance with the Third Schedule to the Rules of the Supreme Court of South Australia. 2 The material before me indicates that that act of bankruptcy was committed, that is that Ms Piepkorn did not comply with the bankruptcy notice by paying the amount of the debt or otherwise make arrangements for its payment. Caroma in the normal course would therefore be entitled to a sequestration order, subject to considering the particular grounds of opposition to the application for the sequestration order identified by Ms Piepkorn. 3 Following the service of the application upon her, she filed and served on 10 January a notice of intention to oppose the application on the ground that: "A jurisdiction matter of a Federal jurisdiction ruled in a State jurisdiction. Invalid judgment."

(That quotation and other quotations from Ms Piepkorn's documents are set out as they appear in the documents referred to).

4 In support of that ground of opposition, Ms Piepkorn also filed and served an affidavit claiming that Caroma was wrongfully claiming money from her because their alleged entitlement was based upon an invalid judgment of the District Court of South Australia. That affidavit asserts that it was an invalid judgment for the following reasons: "The bench gave a ruling on a jurisdictional matter of conciliation and arbitration. The judgment is invalid as the state ruled on a Federal jurisdiction matter. The court bench failed to inform its inability to hear this federal jurisdiction matter. The applicant is under a federal jurisdiction and does not have any legal claims. As State jurisdiction cannot rule on a Federal jurisdiction."