Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Di Gregorio v Lumi Financial Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 94 File number(s): VID 648 of 2021
Judgment of: ROFE J
Date of judgment: 11 February 2022
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – application to set aside bankruptcy notice – whether substituted service effective – whether application to set aside default judgment made within time – whether any other reason under section 41 of the Bankruptcy Act to set aside bankruptcy notice exists – whether Court has power to set aside bankruptcy notice once act of bankruptcy has occurred – application dismissed
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases cited: ANZ Banking Group Limited, in the matter of James v James [2016] FCA 332 Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Forge (2004) 133 FCR 487 Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1994) 217 ALR 251 Nugawela v Deputy Commissioner for Taxation [2016] FCA 578 Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Adrian John Compton [2017] HCA 28 Re Grace (1931) 3 ABC 131 Re Lentini: Ex parte Lentini v CSR Ltd (1991) 29 FCR 363 Re Sterling: Ex parte Esanda Ltd (1980) 30 ALR 77 Re Vella; Ex parte Seymour (1983) 67 FLR 287 Streimer v Tamas (1981) 37 ALR 211
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