Knudsen & Yates trading as The Hargreaves Practice, in the matter of Sanders v Sanders [2003] FCA 1079

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Knudsen & Yates trading as The Hargreaves Practice, in the matter of Sanders v Sanders [2003] FCA 1079 IN THE MATTER OF BASIL CHARLES SANDERS; PETER STANLEY KNUDSEN & JILL ELIZABETH YATES trading as THE HARGREAVES PRACTICE v BASIL CHARLES SANDERS N7074 OF 2003

BENNETT J 9 OCTOBER 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N7074 OF 2003

IN THE MATTER OF: BASIL CHARLES SANDERS

BETWEEN: PETER STANLEY KNUDSEN & JILL ELIZABETH YATES trading as THE HARGREAVES PRACTICE

APPLICANT CREDITORS

AND: BASIL CHARLES SANDERS

RESPONDENT DEBTOR

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 9 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. A sequestration order be made against the estate of Basil Charles Sanders. 2. The sequestration order be stayed until 30 October 2003. 3. The applicant creditors' costs (including reserved costs, if any) be taxed and paid in accordance with the Act. 4. Under the Bankruptcy Regulations a copy of this order be given to the Official Receiver in Sydney within 2 days after the order is entered. The Court notes that the date of the act of bankruptcy is 25 February 2003. 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 N7074 OF 2003

IN THE MATTER OF: BASIL CHARLES SANDERS

BETWEEN: PETER STANLEY KNUDSEN & JILL ELIZABETH YATES trading as THE HARGREAVES PRACTICE

APPLICANT CREDITORS

AND: BASIL CHARLES SANDERS

RESPONDENT DEBTOR

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 9 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION 1 By creditor's petition, the applicant creditors seek a sequestration order against the estate of the respondent debtor ('Mr Sanders'). Mr Sanders, who appeared in person, opposes the making of the sequestration order essentially on the basis that he says that he is solvent. He relies on s 52(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ('the Act') which provides that, if the Court is satisfied by the debtor that he is able to pay his debts, the Court may dismiss the creditors' petition. He does not submit that there has been any failure to comply with the Bankruptcy Rules. 2 A bankruptcy notice was issued on 19 November 2002 and was served on 27 December 2002. An application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was filed on 17 January 2003 but there was no appearance for the respondent debtor at the hearing and the application was dismissed with costs. On 11 March 2003, the creditor's petition was filed. An order for substituted service was made on 21 May 2003. The petition and affidavit in support were served on 23 May 2003. 3 I am satisfied that Mr Sanders committed the act of bankruptcy alleged in the creditor's petition. The date of the act of bankruptcy was 25 February 2003. I am satisfied with the proof of the other matters of which sub-section 52(1) of the Act requires proof. The