Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Baulkham Hills Shire Council, in the Matter of Diamond v Diamond [2000] FCA 1315 BAULKHAM HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL v NEVILLE DIAMOND N 7561 OF 2000 EMMETT J 5 SEPTEMBER 2000 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 7561 OF 2000
IN THE MATTER OF NEVILLE DIAMOND
(also knownas Neville Francis Diamond)
BETWEEN: BAULKHAM HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL
APPLICANT
AND: NEVILLE DIAMOND (also known as NEVILLE FRANCIS DIAMOND)
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER: 5 SEPTEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of Neville Diamond, also known as Neville Francis Diamond. 2. The petitioning creditor's costs, including any reserved costs of this proceeding (if any), be taxed and paid in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). THE COURT NOTES THAT: 3. Consent to act as a trustee has been signed by Thomas William Frederick Dickson and has been lodged with the Official Receiver in Sydney. 4. An act of bankruptcy was committed on 9 May 2000. 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 N 7561 OF 2000
IN THE MATTER OF NEVILLE DIAMOND (also known as Neville Francis Diamond)
BETWEEN: BAULKHAM HILLS SHIRE COUNCIL
APPLICANT
AND: NEVILLE DIAMOND (also known as NEVILLE FRANCIS DIAMOND)
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: EMMETT J
DATE: 5 SEPTEMBER 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me a petition for the sequestration of the estate of Neville Diamond, also known as Neville Francis Diamond. The applicant is Baulkham Hills Shire Council ("the Creditor"). The petition is based on an alleged act of bankruptcy committed when the debtor failed on or before 9 May 2000 to comply with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice. 2 There was no appearance for the debtor today. However, on 30 August 2000 a notice of motion was filed, returnable today, being the return day of the petition after it had been adjourned on 9 August 2000. The notice of motion sought the following orders: "1. That the proceedings be adjourned for three weeks so that the Law Society may make a decision to grant me legal assistance in this matter.
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