Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Hradsky v Jeary [2022] FCA 809 File number(s): VID 743 of 2021
Judgment of: MCEVOY J
Date of judgment: 8 July 2022
Date of publication of reasons: 12 July 2022
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY – Sequestration order made by a registrar – Application made by respondent for review of sequestration order by a Judge – Review hearing de novo – Where the respondent failed to appear at the hearing and could not be cross examined – Evidence of the applicant preferred – Where it is not necessary to go behind the judgment debt – Where the respondent has failed to provide adequate evidence of his solvency – Requirements of s 52(1) of Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) satisfied – Sequestration order made by registrar is affirmed.
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 43, 52(1), 52(2) and 306(1) Federal Court Bankruptcy Rules 2016 (Cth)
Cases cited: Bechara v Bates (2001) 286 FCR 166; [2021] FCAFC 34 Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton (2017) 261 CLR 132; [2017] HCA 28
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 25
Date of hearing: 8 July 2022
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Devanny
Solicitor for the Applicant: Robert Wood and Associates
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear
ORDERS VID 743 of 2021 BETWEEN: ERICA HRADSKY Applicant
AND: RYAN JEARY Respondent
order made by: MCEVOY J DATE OF ORDER: 8 JULY 2022
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