-2-
was made bankrupt.
It was somewhat faintly submitted on behalf of the applicant that the application should succeed even if that were so. I reject that suggestion. In the first place, the applicant could apply for annulment of his son's bankruptcy only if he were a person "aggrieved by or interested in" the matter: ss. 154(1)(a), 303; and I cannot accept the applicant's proposition that the possibility that a person will be confused with a bankrupt because they have the same or similar names entitles that person to apply for annulment of the bankruptcy. Secondly, though the application is for an order that "the bankruptcy in this matter" be annulled, the applicant's contention was that it was he who had been made bankrupt; and in his affidavit sworn 25 August 1976 in support of his application he requests that "my bankruptcy" be annulled on the grounds "(i) that it was based on a judgment debt incurred by default resulting from non-receipt of the initiating process; (ii) that I was not served with a bankruptcy notice; (iii) that I was not served with a bankruptcy petition; (iv) that I have never committed any act of bankruptcy"; and in my view he has not in fact applied for annulment of any bankruptcy other than that to which he claims he is himself subject. Thirdly, it is not disputed that non-service of documents would not be available as a ground for annulment of the son's bankruptcy, and the only other such ground suggested by the applicant is that the debt on which the relevant bankruptcy notice was founded was not the son's debt but the father's. It will appear later that I do not accept that proposition.
The applicant's son did not give any evidence. The applicant swore the affidavit I have mentioned and was examined and cross-examined before me. He said that his full name is
