Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nash v Thomas [2012] FCA 693 Citation: Nash v Thomas [2012] FCA 693
Appeal from: Thomas & Anor v Nash [2011] FMCA 661
Parties: PETER PHILIP NASH v HELEN FRANCES THOMAS and ROLAND THOMAS
File number: SAD 221 of 2011
Judge: FINN J
Date of judgment: 29 June 2012
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – appeal against sequestration order – where bankruptcy notice regularly issued but "bankruptcy notice" served on appellant not a duplicate original or a copy of that notice – notice omitted Official Receiver's endorsement – whether omission of endorsement was a formal defect or irregularity under s 306(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – endorsement an "essential" requirement of the Act.
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 40, s 41, s 43, s 306(1) Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) 4.01, 4.02. 16.01, Bankruptcy Amendment Regulations 2010 (No 1) (Cth)
Cases cited: Mineo v Etna (2009) 176 FCR 74 cited Re De Ieso (1978) 45 FLR 396 cited Re Hatchett; Ex parte Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1985) 11 FCR 118 cited Re O'Sullivan; Ex parte Bank of New Zealand (1991) 30 FCR 112 cited Re Stec; Ex parte Scragg (1997) 75 FCR 377 cited Prudential-Bache Securities (Australia) Ltd v Warner [1999] FCA 1143 cited Adams v Lambert (2006) 228 CLR 409 applied
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