Bankruptcy andFamily Law Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (Cth)
Corporations Act2001 (Cth), s.292
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss.59, 60, 63, 67, 69, 76, 79, 80, 135
Family Court Act 1997 (WA), pt.5A
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 (Cth)
Family Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (WA), pt.4
Federal Circuit Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 (Cth), rr.7.04
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Adsett Berlouis & Ors (1992) 37 FCR 201; (1992) 109 ALR 100
Agresta v Agresta [2015] FCA 46; (2015) 12 ABC(NS) 429
Bank of Australasia v Hill (1907) 4 CLR 1513
Beaman and Bond [2014] FCWA 21
Bryson & Pember [2013] FamCA 43
Burwell Technologies Pty Ltd v Hayward [2007] FMCA 615
BWK Elders (Australia) Pty Ltd v White [2004] FCA 1611; (2004) 3 ABC(NS) 70
Clyne v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation& Anor (1984) 154 CLR 589; (1984) 58 ALJR 398; (1984) 55 ALR 143
Clyne v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 6 FCR 418
Ex parte James; Re Condon (1874) LR 9 Ch App 609
Drake v Jones [2009] FMCA 298
Edelsten v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 86 ALR 257
Ferella v Otvosi [2006] FMCA 334; (2006) 197 FLR 451
Fodare Pty Ltd v Shearn [2010] NSWSC 737; (2010) 240 FLR 187
Heinrich v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2003] FCAFC 315
Honeysett v The Queen [2014] HCA 29; (2014) 253 CLR 122; (2014) 88 ALJR 786; (2014) 311 ALR 320; (2014) 237 A Crim R 589
International Alpaca Management Pty Ltd v Ensor [1999] FCA 72
James v Woodgate [2012] FMCA 1214; (2012) 273 FLR 22
Layton v Westpac Banking Corporation [2000] FCA 1752; (2000) 181 ALR 603
Lukic v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1996) 21 Fam LR 48
Pacelli & Hopkinson [2010] FMCAfam 1248
Quick v Stoland Pty Ltd (1998) 87 FCR 371; (1998) 157 ALR 615
Re Almassy (1999) 92 FCR 597
Re Ayre; Ex Parte Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 130 ALR 648
Re Cornish; Ex parte English (1984) 6 FCR 257
Re Coyle & Another (1993) 42 FCR 72; (1993) 120 ALR 527
Re Gore [1942] QWN 6
Re Heenan; Ex parte Collins (t/a Hertz Carnarvon Auto Rentals) v Official Receiver (1992) 39 FCR 428; (1992) 116 ALR 146
Re Maher & Anor (1985) 7 FCR 240
Re Moncada; Ex parte Moncada (1986) 11 FCR 205
Re Riggs; Ex parte Commissioner of Taxation (WA) (1986) 9 FCR 149
Re Robinson; Ex parte Geroff v Turner (1993) 40 FCR 151; (1993) 117 ALR 131
Re Sanders; Knudsen and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beaman v Bond & Anor (No.2)

Details

AGLC: Beaman v Bond and Anor (No.2) [2016] FCCA 3249
Case: [2016] FCCA 3249
Decision Date: 23 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Mr Beaman to annul his bankruptcy, which had been declared on his own debtors' petition. The application was heard by Antoni Lucev J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the bankruptcy should be annulled pursuant to s 153A of the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth). This required the Court to determine if Mr Beaman had satisfied the conditions for annulment, namely that all his debts had been paid in full, or if there were sufficient grounds to justify annulment on other equitable grounds. A secondary issue arose regarding the admissibility of a report prepared by the trustee in bankruptcy.

His Honour considered the evidence presented, including the trustee's report, and found that Mr Beaman had not discharged his debts in full. The Court applied the principles governing annulment under s 153A, which require a complete discharge of all provable debts. His Honour also ruled on the admissibility of the trustee's report, finding it to be admissible evidence.

The application for annulment was dismissed.

Orders