Background
Joshua Marc Storey and Samantha Ruth Erskine Storey had brought a creditors’ petition against Michelle Susan Britton and Andrew John Britton. The petition had previously been adjourned from 8 September 2026, with timetabling orders made for a hearing on 22 and 26 October.
When the matter was called on, Ms Britton sought another adjournment, supported by Mr Britton. She relied principally on a medical certificate stating that she was unfit for work or school from 8 to 23 October 2026, as well as submissions about a staph infection, ongoing health and vision issues, capacity, uncertainty about the other side’s material, and proposed further evidence. The applicant creditors opposed the request.
The Court’s Holding
Wheatley J dismissed the oral adjournment application. The medical certificate did not identify a diagnosis, explain the condition, or express an opinion that Ms Britton was unable or hindered from preparing for, attending, or participating in the Court hearing. It therefore did not provide a satisfactory evidentiary basis for an adjournment.
The Court was also not satisfied that the asserted staph infection or capacity concerns justified delay. Ms Britton’s submissions at the hearing demonstrated that she could participate meaningfully, and she had filed opposition material during the period covered by the certificate. Any issues about late material, additional evidence, or matters bearing on whether a sequestration order should be made were to be addressed at the substantive hearing rather than by further adjournment.
The Court considered the creditors’ continuing costs, the earlier substantive adjournment, the public interest in bankruptcy proceedings, and the effect of delay on Court resources. The parties had already been given an opportunity to file all material on which they wished to rely.
Key Takeaways
- A medical certificate must provide enough information to show how a condition prevents or materially hinders participation in the particular hearing.
- A party’s demonstrated ability to file material and make submissions can undermine a claim that illness or incapacity requires an adjournment.
- After an earlier adjournment, prejudice to creditors, efficient use of Court resources, and compliance with timetabling orders weigh strongly against further delay.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s insistence that adjournment applications be supported by specific, reliable evidence—not a general statement of unfitness. In insolvency proceedings, delay also affects creditors and engages a public interest in prompt administration of the process.
It further confirms that disputes about late evidence and substantive objections to a creditors’ petition will ordinarily be dealt with at the hearing itself, unless they independently establish a compelling reason to adjourn.