JML Rose Pty Ltd v Jorgensen

LOGAN J: 1 The respondent debtor, Mr Leigh Alan Jorgensen (Mr Jorgensen) has made an application in respect of a sequestration order made by a registrar on 16 October 2024. The application is a somewhat curious document, with all respect to Mr Jorgensen. It seeks the setting aside of the sequestration order on the basis that the order was made in his absence and a related stay pending the outcome of applications in the "Brisbane Magistrates Court and the Federal Circuit Court". 2 It separately seeks a setting aside of "this bankruptcy action" on the basis of a substantial defect in the bankruptcy notice. Yet further, it seeks that the Court go behind the judgment which underlies the petitioning creditors debt and, in turn, a bankruptcy notice. 3 That judgment is one of the Queensland Magistrates Court in a proceeding M193/2022 made some years ago. 4 In the course of submissions about interlocutory directions to the end of the hearing of that application, I made the observation that the application was a "hybrid document". There is, of course, only one set of rules of court. The rules do not differ as between litigants acting on their own behalf and those who have legal representation. As I also expressed in the course of exchanges concerning interlocutory directions, in earlier times when the Court's file was in paper form, I doubt that this application would ever have been accepted for filing on the basis of its inconsistency in form with the rules. There really does need to be some very careful thought indeed, in my respectful view, as to how to restore scrutiny, which hitherto occurred in an analogue age in relation to filing of documents, to the digital age and the electronic court file. 5 However that may be, the document is on the court file and, on its face, Mr Jorgensen has sought a stay of the operation of the order of 16 October 2024. He has pointed, understandably, to the particular difficulties which bankruptcy visits upon an individual in relation to the operation of bank accounts and the like. 6 As against that, the petitioning creditor has highlighted exchanges which occurred at an interlocutory stage on 9 October 2024 before a registrar in relation to the creditor's petition. What particularly takes my attention is that the Magistrates Court judgment concerned was given over two years ago. It seems to me that, whilst Mr Jorgensen has moved to set aside that judgment, that is a belated step. 7 On the face of things, the petition is one which exhibits a judgment and a consequential bankruptcy notice founded on that judgment, which in turn was the subject of non-compliance. The time for seeking a stay, in my view, was in respect of the hearing of the creditor's petition rather than at this stage. I am not persuaded that there is a sufficient case made out in respect of the underlying judgment to warrant a stay of the sequestration order, pending hearing the application. I note particularly also, in considering whether to grant a stay, the existence of a supporting creditor whose submissions today made it patent that there is a disposition, if need be, to substitute in respect of the prosecution of the petition. 8 For these reasons, the stay is refused. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Logan.