featured-image-posts-800w
No Comments

Sequestration Setbacks – Lessons from the case of Vlahos v Vlahos

By David Burley a Law Clerk of Matthews Folbigg Lawyers in our Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group.

Roderick Group Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Vlahos v Vlahos [2024] FedCFamC2G 1439 (“Vlahos v Vlahos”) is the latest case in which the court has reinforced the importance of paying close attention to detail when applying for a sequestration order. The case dealt with an application for the review of a sequestration order made against the estate of Mr Vlahos. The pivotal issue was whether Mr Vlahos had been properly served with a bankruptcy notice, an act required under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Mr Vlahos contended that he had not been properly served due to an incorrect postcode being used in the address (even though he himself had provided that same post code). The implications of this argument and the subsequent decision carry significant consequences for creditors in serving bankruptcy notices and proceeding with creditors petitions, and also for trustees in bankruptcy appointed under sequestration orders which might be liable to be set aside. [...]  READ MORE →

featured-image-posts-800w
No Comments

Signed, Sealed….But Was it Really Delivered? The Perils of Serving Legal Documents by Prepaid Post

By David Burley a Law Clerk of Matthews Folbigg Lawyers in our Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group.

In the recent case of Roderick Group Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Vlahos v Vlahos [2024] FedCFamC2G 1439 (“Vlahos v Vlahos”), the Court was tasked with deciding whether a bankruptcy notice sent by post, but which included an incorrect postcode in the address, had nevertheless been validly served. The case highlights the risks associated with relying on non-personal service methods such as service by post, where minor errors can lead to substantial legal consequences. The judgment underscores the importance of accuracy in serving documents and the benefits for creditors who opt for personal service (especially insofar as time and costs are concerned). [...]  READ MORE →

tracking-money_debt-1060x240_v2
No Comments

Overdue payment – lawyer or Debt Collector?

By Jodie Rodrigues, solicitor at Matthews Folbigg in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group

So you’ve found an outstanding invoice. Sure, all invoices are valuable to a business but now you’re considering whether there is any commercial benefit to asking a lawyer to chase the debt. There are real advantages in using a lawyer rather than a debt collector to assist with collection of your debts. There are three main questions you should ask when considering which invoices to chase through legal proceedings: [...]  READ MORE →

Law and Justice , Legality concept, Judge Gavel, Law book and Scales of Justice on a black wooden background, law library concept.
No Comments

The judge, jury and executioner: a Trustee’s capacity to adjudicate proofs of debt for legal fees

By Jodie Rodrigues, Solicitor at Matthews Folbigg in the Insolvency, Restructuring and Debt Recovery Group.

Pursuant to s 102 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), a trustee is required to “examine each proof of debt and the grounds of the debt sought to be proved”.

Legal costs can often be a problematic consideration, when questions of assessment, and the nature of the costs claim are taken into account. It is therefore important to have regard to the type of costs claims (for instance those of the bankrupt’s own solicitors, or adverse costs orders against the bankrupt). It is also relevant to consider at what stage in any costs assessment process the question of costs is being considered. [...]  READ MORE →

No Comments

Recovering costs for debt collection services

Recovering costs for debt collection services

Fees and costs, including legal costs and costs for third party debt collection services can only be collected from a debtor if there is an agreement between the creditor and debtor providing for those costs to be payable to the creditor. Attempting to recover costs in the absence of a clause in the relevant agreement can be misleading deceptive and conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)), section 154 of the National Credit Code (Schedule 1 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)) as well as Section 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (“the ASIC Act”). [...]  READ MORE →