Barton, Thomas v Wilson, Brian Ross Official Receiver in Bankruptcy

[1977] FCA 18

-- TaOMdS BLRTON - and - BRIAN E3SS rY'IiSXI, OFFICIAL FL?;CLIViiR I N BANkWFTCY

J U D G M E N T

BOWEN, C.J.: This is an a p e a l f r o n a d e c i s i o n o f Mr. J u s t i c e

Sweeney given on March 1977. The proceedings before

Mr. J u s t i c e Sweeney a rose cu t o f an app1icat;on by Thomas

Barton, the bankrupt , seel i lng an o r d e r u n d e r S . 69(10)

of the Bankruptcy Act 1965 that t h e commencemt,nt o f h i s

publ ic examinat ion be post->oned, and an order reviewing

under S. h ( 5 ) of the Bankxp tcy Azt t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e

Reg i s t r a r g iven on 16 February, 1977 t h a t he would _-

proceed with the publ ic examlnat i sn of the bankrupt and

r e q u e s t i n g that the Registrar's d e c i s i o n be s e t aside.

Mr. J u s t i c e Sweeney refused t o make the orders scught and

his reasons for judgment are before us.

One of the grounds on whlch the postponement

was sou:Tht was tha t a r e s u l t o f ho ld ing the pub l i c

examination would be t o p r e j u d i c e t h e b a n k r u p t u n f a i r l y

i n r e l a t ion to commi t t a l p roceed ing ; , wh ich were then due

t o commence on 14 March, 1977 and which we are now i n -

fo rmed a re to comence on 17 March, 1977 and a l s o t o

p r e j u d i c e u n f a i r l y t h e bankrupt a t t h e t r i a l , shsu ld he

be committed. Treating the .zatter as one o f urgency the

C s u r t o f f e r e d a n e a r l y h e e r i n g of t he appea l . This was

accepted by t h e p a r t i e s .

On t h e h e a r l n g o f t h e a p r e a l t h e n a i n a t t a c k

on the dec i s ion o f Mr. J u s t i c e Sweeney made by Counsel

f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t has b e e n i n r e l a t i o n t o his r e f u s a l t o

give a d i rec t ion for pos tponement under S. 69(1.0) o f t he

Bankruptcy Act. Counse l for the appel lan t submi t ted t ha t

the power under S . 69(10) 'ras a d i s c r e t i o n a r y power

and ind ica t ed that he would s e e k t o shjw t h a z the judge

had e r r e d i n one o r o t h e r of the wel l recognized ways

which may lay open a d i sc re t iona ry judgmen t to attack.

In t h e n a i n , Cou ' s e l ' s a r g u a e n t was d i r e c t e d t o

grounds 1, 2 and ground 5 jaras. (iii), ( i v ) and (v) of

z k x n o t i c e of appeal. These are as fo l lows:

1. That i n the c i rcumstances of the case His Honour

was i n e r r o r i n dec id ing that ' the apprehension as t o t h e

way i n which an examinat ion may be r e p o r t e d i n t h e news

media does not afford a su f f i c i en t r e , z son f o r the Court

t o act t o bar commencement of t h e e x m i n a t i o n .

2. That Hls Honour s h o u l d h a v e h e i d th3t appre-

hens ion as t o t h e way i n which a n e x m l n a t i o a may be

r e p o r t e d i n t h e news media was a s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r

the C o u r t t o	act t o postpone	the	cenmencement o f t h e
examination.

ERP/MB/ld	1	11/3/77
Toga

v

5. That His Honour should have he1.d on the evldence

thF: following grounds had been made out by the a p p e l l a n t

i n suppork of hls a p p l i c a t i o n : -

There i s t h e r e a l and proven l ikel ihood that

the sub jec t ma t t e i of t he exen lna t ion and the

a p p e l l a n t I s answers i n the course thereof Wil

be wide ly publ lc i red in the medla of th l s State.

That a mischief wculd be c rea t ed by r e p o r t s

i n the media havlr g a tendency to pze jud ice

t h e p o s i t i o n of the appel la . l t as an accused

p e r s o n i n t h e said criminal proceedillTs.

That it i s a matter o f pub l i c po l i cy in the

c r j m i n a l s p h e r e o f t h e a t n i n l s t r a t i o n o f

j u s t i c e f o r a n a c c u s e d p e r s o n t o r e c e l v e a

f a i r t r i a l and that t h e t r i b u n a l b e f o r e which

he is t o be t r i e d 1s no t p re jud iced o r

a f f e c t e d i n t h e e x e r c i s e of I ts j u r i s d i c t l o n .

Broadly, these g r o u n d s r e l e t e t o t h e p r e j u d i c e ,

which it is said will o c c w from r e f e r e n c e i n t h e n e d l a

t o t h e p u b l i c e x a m i n a t i o n b e f o r e t h e S e g l s t r a r	if	t	h	s
i s p e m l t t e d t o proceed.

I n ny view Counsel fa l led t o show i n r p s p e c t

of these grounds o r any otLer ground o f appeal t b a t Mr.

J u s t i c e Sweeney had misd i rec ted h imsel f o r t a k e n l n t o

account anything he shculd not have taken into account

G r f a i l e d t o t z k e I n t o account anything srhich ne should

have taken in to accoun t or o t c l e rwi se f a l l en in to e r r o r .

I do not consido: that any use fu l pu rpose would

be served by canvassing i n d e t a i l the matters which were

b e f o r e Mr. J u s t i c e Sweeney and whlch were consldered by

him. The hea r ing be fo re : l im o ccupied three days.

However, I may s a y tha t e--=n if t h e tesk o f t h l s cour t

was t o f o r 3 i ts own op in io : and , i n e f f ec t , t-i e x e r c i s e

t h e d i s c r e t i o n u n d e r S . 69 i0) i t s e l f , I do r.ot cons lder

t ha t on the material which was before Mr. J u s t l c e Sweeney

and to which Counsel have drawn our . I t t e n t i o n , I

woald have arr ived a t a d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n .

I t u r n now t o the reques t f o r a review of the

Registrar's dec i s ion . The m a t e r i i l b e f o r e t h e R e g i s t r a r

when he dec ided to re fuse an adJournment and to proceed

with t h e pub3.ic exdminat isn was less thzln t h e m a t e r i a l

which was be fo re Mr. J u s t i c e Sweeney. On t h e m t e r i a l

b e f o r e the R e g i s t r e r I am of oplnion tha t his d e c i s i o n

n o t t o g r a n t a n e d j o a r n m e n t a n ? t o p r o c e e d with the

publ ic examinat ion was a c o r r e c t d e c i s i o n 2nd thct Nr.

J u s t i c e	Sweeney	WAS	n o t I n e r r o r i n r e f u s m g t o s e t	it
a s i d e .

2 1/3/77

I

ITIMMO J: - q r c - with the d e c i s i o n o f t h e C h i G f ' Judge t o disniss

t h i s apper-l and his re -sons thers for and I have nolhiog

t o sad.

Y R A N K I , J : I agree and I have nothzi1; t o add.

BOWEN, C.J.: The o rde r of the Cour: will be, appeal dismissed.

Order t h e a p p e l l h It t o pay the respondent ' s

c o s t s .

3 11/3/77