A Free Access Website

Michael Murray’s on-going commentary on issues in corporate and personal insolvency law and related policy and law reform, in Australia and internationally. Given the scope of insolvency, this extends to business, consumer and professional conduct, and ethics, governance and regulation, criminal, tax, environmental and administrative law, and the courts and government.

 

A bankrupt and ‘one rooster, one peacock, three ducks, and 22 chickens …’

A person’s bankruptcy can arise from a host of circumstances, disputes with neighbours and non-compliance with local council requirements being a significant one.

The 2012 bankruptcy of Maria Fokas arose from her allegedly and unlawfully keeping on her Kogarah property ‘one rooster, one peacock, three ducks, and 22 chickens when no more than 5 chickens could be kept, and roosters were not permitted’.

In earlier proceedings, one judge had allowed her to bring her rooster into Court, but ultimately, the rooster was ordered removed from her home.

She lost throughout the court proceedings, and was ordered to pay the council’s costs, and her inability to pay them led to her bankruptcy. Her application to challenge the bankruptcy, including on constitutional grounds, was summarily dismissed. She remains an undischarged bankrupt.

The Judge noted that Mrs Fokas has been declared a vexatious litigant by other courts, and the potential for the Federal Court to so declare was raised. Fokas v Mansfield as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Maria Fokas [2019] FCA 1724

It would be a matter for her bankruptcy trustee to determine whether the animals were assets in her bankruptcy, or were used by her for earning an income, or were personal items.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest

Popular

Featured

Stay Up To Date With Murrays Legal Commentary

Subscribe now