(a) The registration of orders for XD 557/23 in claim XD 1139/2023; and

(b) the registration and service of XD 1139/23, 1485/23 and 222/24 in the present claim.

1. On 16 September 2024, the applicant issued a bankruptcy notice against the respondent for the sum of $10,587.28, being the total amount of the previous tribunal orders.
2. Also on 16 September 2024, the applicant lodged these proceedings, seeking the latest unpaid levies, and enforcement expenses incurred since the previous hearing, including the cost of preparing and serving the bankruptcy notice.
3. The bankruptcy notice was served on 3 October 2024.
4. The respondent's mother paid the debt in bankruptcy notice on 8 November 2024.
5. On that same day, 8 November 2024, the respondent filed a response this application in which he agreed to judgement being entered by consent on the basis that "judgement entered in the amount of $10.587.28, noting that the amount had been paid on 24 October 2024."
6. The respondent appears to have concluded, based on the paperwork, that the payment made on 8 November 2024 satisfied all outstanding debts. On this point, he was mistaken. Only the debts in the bankruptcy notice, arising from the previous proceedings had been paid. The unpaid levies the subject of the current process remained unlitigated and unrecovered.
7. Having reviewed the application presently before the Tribunal in light of this background, I am satisfied that there are no levies claimed in this matter that have been claimed in other matters, or in the bankruptcy notice.
8. The expenses claimed under section 31 in this proceeding have also arisen since the previous proceedings but relate to enforcement of orders made in those proceedings, including the registration of the judgements and, most significantly the bankruptcy notice. While I cannot profess to have undertaken a full audit, there does not appear to be any duplication.

1. The respondent argued that the bankruptcy notice was excessive, presumably both in terms of the cost and the decision to pursue it.
2. At least in relation to the cost, it was not obvious on the face of the application how the $1,010 was calculated.
3. As I have said above, the information filed in this proceeding is not particularly helpful in clarifying the situation. The evidence given by the applicant's representative at the hearing, however, was, particularly when viewed in light of a review of the previous files. On this basis I have found the fee reasonable.
4. To set out why I found this fee reasonable, it is useful to step through what a bankruptcy notice is.
5. A bankruptcy notice is a formal notice of demand requiring a debtor to pay a judgment debt. Section 41 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) provides that the Official Receiver may issue a bankruptcy notice on the application of a creditor who has satisfied various requirements. Failure by a debtor to comply with a bankruptcy notice constitutes an "act of bankruptcy" pursuant to section 40 of the Bankruptcy Act. Within six months of such a default, a creditor may apply to the Federal Court or Federal Circuit and Family Court for an order that a debtor be made bankrupt (referred to as a "sequestration order").
6. The minimum debt for a bankruptcy notice is $10,000[11]. To apply online for the issue of a bankruptcy notice, the creditor will a sealed copy of a judgement or order. In this case, the applicant accumulated and registered five tribunal orders before reaching this threshold. Registration of a tribunal order is a prerequisite to applying for a bankruptcy order. It is not clear whether the applicant took any enforcement action during this period.
7. Once served, the terms of a bankruptcy notice require the debtor to comply with the notice within 21 days. Relevantly, the debtor may:

(a) pay the creditor the amount of the debt claimed or settle the claim in some other way; or

(b) apply to the Court to set aside the bankruptcy notice and/or extend time for compliance with the notice.

1. If the debtor does not comply within 21 days of service of a bankruptcy notice, the debtor will commit an act of bankruptcy[12]. The creditor who served the notice may then present a creditor's petition based on the act of bankruptcy seeking an order that the debtor be made a bankrupt.
2. The costs involved in a bankruptcy notice are not insignificant and include an application fee of $470 that is payable to the issuing authority. The fee is payable at the time of making the application.
3. A debtor who can prove that the purpose of the bankruptcy notice was to enforce payment, rather than a genuine effort by the creditor to make you bankrupt may be able to get the bankruptcy notice set aside by a relevant court as an abuse of process. It does not appear that the respondent did this.
4. This Tribunal is not in a position to assess whether the bankruptcy notice was valid. The Tribunal can consider whether any fees incurred in the process were "reasonably incurred." Prior to these proceedings the respondent was ordered, on four separate occasions, to pay the outstanding levies. He did not do so. The applicants, faced with thus far unrecoverable debts of over $10,000, lodged a bankruptcy petition, with the intention of causing him to commit an act of bankruptcy. This would have allowed the judgement debts to be recovered by the respondent's sequestered estate. Fortunately, this was not necessary, as the debts were paid. While there is no doubt many reasons why the respondent was in the position he was in, on an objective basis there was nothing unreasonable about this process, or the incurring of costs in furtherance of it.
5. In regard to assessing the reasonableness of the costs incurred in the process of issuing the bankruptcy notice, tribunal authority suggests that regard should be had to the evidence of work necessarily done.[13] The documents filed by the applicant do not greatly assist with this (indeed the "worksheet" does not help at all), but again, the oral evidence of the applicant's representative was useful. His evidence was that:

(a) $470 goes to the AFMA as the cost of the application;

(b) $66 goes toward other checks (eg. to ensure that an application has not already been made by someone else;

(c) $121 is charged for serving the notice; and

(d) about $350 was fees for CCA.

1. The documents filed by the applicant accord with the early stages of the process as outlined above. While the bankruptcy notice application itself is a simple form that should not require a lot of work, it still requires some assembly of documents. The applicant's representative is entitled to make some profit for its services, which is provides to the owner's corporation pursuant. $350 is not an unreasonable sum for CCA to charge for a bankruptcy notice, allowing disbursements built into the sum.
2. As such, I am broadly of the view that $1,010 is reasonable for the bankruptcy application.
3. Further, in the Owners Unit Plan 3788 v Black [2018] ACAT 6 I observed that scale costs may be a useful means of assessing the reasonableness of fees charged[14], although they are not limited to that. Scale costs apply to a matter that proceeds to Court, which this matter did not, but a scale represent an objective assessment of the value of work undertaken. They have not been used in by the Tribunal to date, but I nonetheless had regard to what the Federal Court awards when such matters do proceed to Court. The Federal Court Rules clause 14.1 prescribe the amount that may be claimed by an applicant on the making of a sequestration order as $3,125. This is the end point of the bankruptcy process and involves many further steps to simply making a bankruptcy application, including formal court proceedings. While this can only be a very rough guide, fees of around a third of that cost, at this point in the process, are not unreasonable.
4. As such, having regard to all the evidence before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that the bankruptcy notice is a reasonable cost, reasonably incurred.

1. The applicant separately charged $66 for registering the Tribunal orders and serving the registration orders. Again, this was not an unreasonable amount. Registration of the Tribunal's orders is a necessary step to bringing the bankruptcy action, and indeed seeking enforcement of an unpaid debt generally.
2. Some of the other costs are less clear. As the respondent's mother observed:

...All we get are scribbled timesheets and a different figure every time we ask the figure is different. So can we get your act together and itemise everything so that we have something to work towards. We don't want to cheat anyone. We don't want to - this is a morass of handwritten scribbled figures.[15]

1. The "scribbled" timesheets mainly go to setting out the basis for amounts awarded in previous matters. They are difficult to read, and I acknowledge the respondent (and his mother's) frustration. I have considered them as per the above.
2. Turning to the actual expenses, the schedule of expenses includes two entries for "CCA advice/Correspondence - 28/02/2024", one in XD 1139/2023 and one in XD 1485/2023 for $88 and $22 respectively. There is a third fee for "advice/correspondence - 30/10/2024" for $33. While these expenses do not appear to be an unreasonable in sum, it is unclear what they are for. I cannot be satisfied they were reasonably incurred and disallow them.
3. Next, there is a "solicitor fee" of $330 which was incurred on 3 December 2024. Shortly before the hearing, the applicant filed a "costs timesheet" with handwritten annotations which, I assume, it intended to explain this documents. Given the late submission of the document and its near illegibility, I have not considered it. Based on the evidence given by the applicant's representative at the hearing, it appears that this amount is a fee for assembling the documents requested by the Tribunal pursuant to directions made to clarify the claim, and well as amended to claim to include additional expenses. While I have some concerns about the procedure adopted by the applicant's representative, the fee itself is not excessive, and indeed would likely be much higher in other circumstances. It is less than drafting and lodging a new application with the tribunal. I am satisfied the fee is reasonable and reasonably incurred.
4. The substituted service costs are more complicated. The applicant explained, when questioned about them by the respondent:

Because we actually got - we did substituted service orders for their petition for the debt applications on you - we especially did it to make sure you got it and you had tenants in your place at one stage and then they left and this, that and the other and we made sure that you got it because we got the ACAT to email you -

1. The respondent conceded that he had advised the applicants, and their agent, not to send anything to him by mail.[16] In the circumstances, a substituted service application was appropriate. My concern at hearing was whether there was duplication between this application and any previous application for substituted service, but a review of the file does not suggest this is the case.
2. I note that the applicant may well have paid some or all of these levies in the meantime, in which case that amount paid should be credited against this order.
3. The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $7,110.65 consisting of:

(e) $3,780.41 in unpaid levies;

(f) statutory interest of $508.24;

(g) $2,582 in section 31 expenses; and

(h) $240 for the appearance fee.

Paragraph 33 Replacing "I can emphasise with his personal circumstances " with "I can empathise with his personal circumstances".

Paragraph 34 Replacing "I can no basis to do behind the levies" with "I have no basis to do behind the levies".

Paragraph 39 Replacing "9the enforcement process)" with "(the enforcement process).

Paragraph 45 Removing "in the Magistrates Court" in subparagraph (a).

[2] See the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACAT Act) s 48

[4] Courts and Other Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2018 s 116

[5] Ruling Tribunal Decision at [118]; Craven & Gilks v The Owners - UP No 2839 (Appeal) [2023] ACAT 4 at [135]

[6] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 7(a)(i)

[7] ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 7(a)(ii)

[8] under the Magistrates Court Act 1930, part 4.2 (Civil jurisdiction) - see A_CT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008_ s. 22.

[11] Section 10A of the Bankruptcy Regulations

[12] See Section 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act

[13] Wright v The Owners - Units Plan No 14 Appeal) [2021] ACAT 77 at [70]

[14] At [65]-[73]; see also the Owners Unit Plan No 2983 v Silvano [2020] ACAT 4

[15] Transcript of proceedings dated 14 January 2025, page 10, lines 19-22

[16] Transcript of proceedings dated 14 January 2025, page 21, lines 4-6