Gould v Day [2002] FCA 173

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gould v Day [2002] FCA 173 STEPHEN GOULD v JULIAN DAY & ANOR N 7019 OF 2002 EMMETT J 19 FEBRUARY 2002 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 7109 OF 2002

BETWEEN: STEPHEN GOULD

APPLICANT

AND: JULIAN DAY

FIRST RESPONDENT

ALAN MANLY

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 FEBRUARY 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the application for annulment of bankruptcy filed on 18 January 2002 be dismissed. 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 7109 OF 2002

BETWEEN: STEPHEN GOULD

APPLICANT

AND: JULIAN DAY

FIRST RESPONDENT

ALAN MANLY

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: EMMETT J

DATE: 19 FEBRUARY 2002

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I have before me an application pursuant to s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) for the annulment of the bankruptcy of Stephen Gould. The sequestration order was made by Conti J on 7 September 2000. The act of bankruptcy on which the sequestration order was based was non-compliance with Bankruptcy Notice N1632 of 1999. That bankruptcy notice was based on a judgment of the District Court in the sum of $44,515.16 resulting from a costs order against Mr Gould. 2 On 13 September 1999 Mr Gould applied to the Court for an order that the Bankruptcy Notice be set aside. That application was based on three grounds: (i) that the costs judgment in the District Court should not have been awarded because the true plaintiff was not Mr Gould but a body known as Halisa International; (ii) that the costs order should not have resulted in the quantum assessed by the costs assessor, but should have been for an amount reduced by reason of the conduct of the judgment creditors in the course of the District Court litigation; and (iii) that Mr Gould had a counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt.