Case: Re Edwards (1987) 14 FCR 113 
Outcome: discussed
The first argument is that the first Naylor proposal was an impermissible joint or unitary composition. Section 73 , it was submitted, did not permit two bankrupts to put a proposal in one document. I do not agree. The proposal was joint and several. Section 73 requires a proposal to the bankrupts' creditors. There is no reason why one proposal cannot be put forward, as long as it was put forward to all three groups of creditors, as it plainly was and was intended to be. The proposal, if put to a meeting of an individual body of creditors, can be seen as a proposal put forward by the bankrupt for his creditors to deal with. It is said that the proposal to each estate cannot come in the same joint form and that three cases stand as authority for that proposition; Re Pepper (1969) 14 FLR 282 , Re Tynan; Ex parte Tynan (1997) 16 FCR 307 and Re Edwards (1987) 14 FCR 113. 66 In Re Edwards 14 FCR 113 French J dealt with one joint composition covering two estates, a joint estate and a several estate. Despite some of the language in the judgment, it is clear that the vice identified by his Honour was the single approval for all the estates in one meeting. This can be seen by his Honour's reliance upon the reference to Re Forbes 24 FLR 87. French J said the following at 116: In a case where the bankrupts have some joint creditors and some separate creditors it would be inappropriate to submit the separate creditors to a binding composition on which they may have been out-voted by joint creditors with quite different interests. Similarly it would be inappropriate to admit to a vote on a joint composition, separate creditors whose interests might conflict with those of the joint creditors. Re Forbes was a decision of Judge White in the Court of Insolvency of South Australia in which his Honour declared void a composition purportedly entered into under Part X of the Act, by a husband and wife who were not in partnership but who had substantial joint creditors. Each also had separate debts. A joint meeting of creditors was called at which a composite special resolution was passed. Creditors of all classes voted on the composite resolution. His Honour then quoted White J at page 88. French J concluded his judgment by saying: The proposal if it is to be proceed will have to be recast in the form of separate proposals for each of the bankrupts. Each will require a separate meeting of creditors although the meetings can be held concurrently provided that the procedure necessary to maintain the distinction between the two proposals is followed. On this basis I have no alternative but to dismiss the application. 67 In Re Tynan 16 FCR 307, French J had a case before him where there were bankrupts who had been partners with no separate bankrupt estate. Some passages of the judgment of French J appear, taken literally, to prevent under s 73 any joint composition to be entered where there is more than one estate. I do not think his Honour's reasons should be so read, especially in the light of the terms of Re Edwards 119 FCR 113 in the same year. By his Honour's reference to Re Pepper 14 FLR 282 and Re Edwards 14 FCR 113 (and through it Re Forbes 24 FLR 97) and via what his Honour said at pages 312 and 313 about the need for separate meetings, I conclude that his Honour was dealing with the same essential difficulty, that is, of mixing up the voting of different creditors at different meetings.