McCracken v Phoenix Constructions (Queensland) Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 41 (18 April 2013): Bankruptcy, whether debt owing at time of bankruptcy, sections 44(1) and 52(1) of Bankruptcy Act

April 21, 2013

The Full bench of the Federal court in McCracken v Phoenix Constructions (Queensland) Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 41 by unanimous decision and per Lander J’s reasons, upheld an appeal against a sequestration order made by the Federal Magistrate’s Court.  The issue on appeal, at [34], is succinctly described as:

“..first, whether if a debt is relied upon for the issue of the bankruptcy notice and as an act of bankruptcy, that debt must continue to be owing at the time when the creditor’s petition is heard for the Court to make a sequestration order; secondly, if the debt is no longer owing at that time, whether the petitioning creditor can rely upon a later debt which first arose after the act of bankruptcy and after the filing of a creditor’s petition; and thirdly, if that debt can be relied upon at the hearing of the creditor’s petition and at the time of the making of the sequestration order, must that debt be for a liquidated sum.”

Facts 

The Appellant (“McCracken”) and the Respondent (“Phoenix”) were involved in a proceeding which culminated in judgement being entered for Phoenix in the sum of $2,025,212.17 on 15 June 2011. On 7 July 2011 the official receiver issued a bankruptcy notice directed to McCracken [4]. On 12 July 2011 McCracken filed a notice of appeal [5] and on 13 July the trial judge ordered McCracken to pay Phoenix’s cost of the proceedings [6]. Those costs were never assessed. On 10 August 2011 a bankruptcy notice was served on McCracken [12] with Phoenix filing a creditor’s petition on 11 August 2011. The creditors petition relied on a number of acts of bankruptcy including McCracken absenting himself from Australia and his dwelling house to avoid service. It did not rely upon the appellants failure to pay the judgement sum [13].  On 27 September 2011 in the Court of Appeal refused McCracken’s application for a stay of the judgement [15] and the Federal Magistrates Court refused his application for a stay of the bankruptcy proceeding [16]. On 18 October 2011 Phoenix filed an amended creditors petition relying upon McCracken’s failure to comply with the bankruptcy notice [17].

On 18 May 2012 the Court of Appeal allowed McCracken’s appeal and set aside the orders made by the trial judge [19]. On 19 July 2012  the Federal Magistrates Court heard the petition and made a sequestration order against McCracken on 14 September 2012 [22]. Their Honours’ noted that at the time the Federal Magistrates Court heard the creditor’s petition the debt which was relied on in both the bankruptcy notice and the creditor’s petition no longer existed, having been discharged by the Court of Appeal [23]. The Federal Magistrate concluded that even though the amount may have changed there was an ongoing debt that which was still doing due and owing [31] and that once an act of bankruptcy had been committed it remained available for the purposes of a sequestration order and did not rely on other acts of bankruptcy relied upon by Phoenix, such as the conduct of the appellants to avoid service [33].

Decision

Where the debtor who has committed an act of bankruptcy is ordinarily resident in Australia the court may make a sequestration order against the estate of the debtor [51].  The first requirement to found that jurisdiction is that the debtor has committed an act of bankruptcy [52]. The second necessary fact is that the debtor comes within one of the descriptions and section 43(1) (b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (the “Act”).

The Court found that whilst the debt need not be the same debt as was relied upon to the act of bankruptcy it must be a debt which existed at the time of the act of bankruptcy [63]. The debt must Read the rest of this entry »

Google chief raises privacy issues about drones

April 14, 2013

Who would have thought someone from Google would raise worries about privacy……..about anything.  But it has happened.  In Google chief urges action to regulate mini-drones Eric Schmidt raises privacy and security concerns about drones.

The article provides:

The Read the rest of this entry »

In May 2013 I will be delivering a paper at MIT8.

April 13, 2013

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) have accepted my proposal to publish a paper and make a presentation at MIT8; public media private media, media in transition international conference.  It will be held at Cambridge Massachusetts, USA.

The homepage for the conference is found here. The tentative agenda is found here.

I will be on a panel on Sunday 5 May 2013 covering Reputation and Identity Online.  My presentation is titled Managing Online Identity.

The agenda relevantly provides:


Reputation and Identity Online

 

Complainant AY v Public Sector Employer [2013] VPrivCmr 02

April 12, 2013

In Complainant AY v Public Sector Employer [2013] VPrivCmr 02 the Victorian Privacy Commissioner considered a serious complaint about a breach of privacy by a public sector employer.

FACTS

In approximately 2006 Read the rest of this entry »

Defamation claim involving private moments reported in the Age

The Age in Liquidator claims in writ that stripper photos led to dismissal reports on an allegedly surreptituous photograph of the Plaintiff in a compromising position with an exotic dancer (stripper in the general vernacular).

It provides:

Strip club operator Read the rest of this entry »

Radio station breaches privacy rights when Leeds United Chair disclose personal information during broadcast

April 11, 2013

Yorkshire radio was found to have breached the privacy rights of a footballer when it allowed the Chairman of Leeds United, Ken Bates, to disclose Read the rest of this entry »

Australian Retail Credit Association releases draft Credit Reporting Code of Conduct.

April 6, 2013

On 3 April 2013 ARCA released its draft of the new CR Code, an integral part of the regulatory framework of those governed by the Credit Reporting provisions of the Privacy Act.

The public consultation closes on 5 May 2013.

The Information Commissioner’s media release of yesterday’s date is found here.

The draft CR Code and details for lodging a submission can be found here.

Part of the ARCA submission Read the rest of this entry »

Drones interview

Last Wednesday, 3 April 2013, the stand in presenter on the ABC morning shift in Melbourne, Sally Warhurst interviewed Hai Tran of Coptercam regarding the civilian use of drones.  It is found here.  It is Read the rest of this entry »

Vale Roger Ebert

April 5, 2013

This is a legal blog.  For the most part.  I break tradition once a year, with a Christmas unabashedly sentimental blog.  Lawyers can have hearts too.  But that is about it.

Except when a giant of the written word dies.  As did one of the titans today.  Read the rest of this entry »

Article in Harvard law review regarding the dangers of surveillance

April 1, 2013

Professor Richards, of the Washington University in St Louis School of Law has published an excellent article in the latest edition of the Harvard Law Review titled The Dangers of Surveillance.

The abstract provides:

From the Fourth Amendment to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, our law and literature are full of warnings about state scrutiny of our lives. These warnings are commonplace, but they are rarely very specific. Other than the vague threat of an Orwellian dystopia, as a society we don’t really know why surveillance is bad, and why we should be wary of it. To the extent the answer has something to do with “privacy,” we lack an understanding of what “privacy” means in this context, and why it matters. Developments in government and corporate practices, Read the rest of this entry »