Brownlee v Manteit

Case [2000] FCA 1937


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Brownlee v Manteit [2000] FCA 1937

RHONDA ANN BROWNLEE v MARK MANTEIT & ANOR
N7937 of 2000

MADGWICK J
5 DECEMBER 2000
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N7937 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

RHONDA ANN BROWNLEE
APPLICANT

AND:

MARK MANTEIT
FIRST RESPONDENT

INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICE OF AUSTRALIA
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 DECEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1The failure of the applicant to file her statement of affairs with the Registrar of this Court in 1995 was an irregularity within the meaning of s 306 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

2In the circumstances, the proceedings being the filing of such a statement of affairs, was not invalidated by that irregularity.

3The applicant's statement of affairs is deemed to have been filed on or before 16 December 1996.

4The applicant was discharged from bankruptcy on 17 December 1999.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N7937 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

RHONDA ANN BROWNLEE
APPLICANT

AND:

MARK MANTEIT
FIRST RESPONDENT

INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEE SERVICE OF AUSTRALIA
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE:

5 DECEMBER 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

HIS HONOUR:

  1. The Deputy Registrar has apparently spoken to somebody in the office of Mr Manteit, the first respondent, he being absent, and the view has been conveyed to the Registrar that there is no objection to the application which the applicant seeks.  It seems to me that it would be within the power of the Court to grant the orders sought and I will do so.

  2. I declare that the failure of the applicant in 1995 to file her statement of affairs with the Registrar of this Court, as the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) required, was an irregularity within the meaning of s 306 of the Act and I declare that in the circumstances the proceeding, being the filing of such a statement of affairs, was not invalidated by that irregularity.

  3. I further declare that I am not of the opinion that substantial injustice has been caused by this irregularity.  I declare accordingly that the applicant's statement of affairs is deemed to have been filed on or before 16 December 1996 and I declare that the applicant was discharged from bankruptcy on 17 December 1999.  There will be no order as to costs. 

  4. I might add that the first respondent would appear to misconceive his responsibilities as a trustee, which are not to stay quiet and refuse to assist the Court simply because the money in the estate has run out.  I will cause a copy of this judgment to be sent by the Registrar to Mr Manteit.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:

Dated:            15 January 2001

Representative for the Applicant: A J Brownlee (with leave)
No appearance for the 1st and 2nd Respondent.
Date of Hearing: 5 December 2000
Date of Judgment: 5 December 2000
Details
AGLC
Brownlee v Manteit [2000] FCA 1937
Case
[2000] FCA 1937
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rhonda Ann Brownlee filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia seeking a declaration that her failure to file a statement of affairs in 1995 did not invalidate the subsequent filing of such a statement. The case was heard by Madgwick J, who concluded that the irregularity in failing to file the statement of affairs did not invalidate the proceedings. The court also declared that the applicant's statement of affairs was deemed to have been filed on or before 16 December 1996 and that the applicant was discharged from bankruptcy on 17 December 1999. The first respondent, Mark Manteit, who was absent during the hearing, did not object to the application.

The primary legal issue that the court needed to decide was whether the irregularity in failing to file the statement of affairs within the stipulated time frame invalidated the subsequent filing. The court had to determine whether the irregularity had caused substantial injustice, which would have rendered the subsequent filing ineffective. Another legal issue was whether the first respondent's responsibilities as a trustee had been properly discharged.

The court held that the irregularity in failing to file the statement of affairs was within the meaning of s 306 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). However, the court found that the irregularity did not invalidate the proceedings. Madgwick J was not of the opinion that substantial injustice had been caused by the irregularity. The court further declared that the applicant's statement of affairs was deemed to have been filed on or before 16 December 1996 and that the applicant was discharged from bankruptcy on 17 December 1999. The court also noted that the first respondent had misconceived his responsibilities as a trustee. The court did not make any order as to costs.

The court declared that the failure of the applicant to file her statement of affairs with the Registrar of this Court in 1995 was an irregularity within the meaning of s 306 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). However, in the circumstances, the proceedings being the filing of such a statement of affairs, was not invalidated by that irregularity. The court further declared that the applicant's statement of affairs is deemed to have been filed on or before 16 December 1996 and that the applicant was discharged from bankruptcy on 17 December 1999.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MADGWICK J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MADGWICK J

Full text does not contain this section.