Burton, L.R. v Wily, H.J - [1994] FCA 391

Re: LESLIE ROSS BURTON
LESLIE ROSS BURTON, NJW CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED and URMAR PTY LTD v. HUGH
JENNER WILY
No. NB2172 of 1993
FED No. 391/94
Number of pages - 3
Bankruptcy
(1994) 122 ALR 399

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
BANKRUPTCY DIVISION
DAVIES J

CATCHWORDS

Bankruptcy - control over property of bankrupt - whether the entitlement to vote at a creditors' meeting is determined by the quantum of the debt - whether a proof of debt is a sufficient written statement for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.64D.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) - s.64D, s.64ZA

HEARING

SYDNEY, 25 March 1994
#DATE 25:3:1994

Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Applicants: C. Hogg

Solicitors for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Applicants: Simon Beverly and

Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J.K. Chippindall

Solicitors for the Respondent: Aitken and Magney

JUDGE1

DAVIES J This application brought on behalf of Leslie Ross Burton and NJW Contractors Pty Limited seeks an order of the Court declaring that certain proofs of debt were wrongly admitted by the trustee at a meeting of creditors held on 21 December 1993. The meeting was called pursuant to consent orders made by Mr Justice Sheppard early in December 1993. The notice which called the meeting was dated 3 December 1993 and it called a meeting for 21 December 1993. In accordance with s.64D of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ("the Act"), it gave notice that each creditor must give to the trustee at or before the meeting a written statement of debt setting out, so far as is relevant for present purposes, the amount in respect of which the creditor claimed that the bankrupt was indebted to the creditor.

Subsequently, such statements in the form of proofs of debt were submitted to the trustee, Mr H.J. Wily. It appears from the minutes of the meeting that Mr Wily had the proofs before him, that he read through the proofs, discussed the proofs with the persons present at the meeting and announced his conclusions as to whether or not each person lodging a proof ought to be admitted to vote as a creditor and of the amount for which the creditor would be entitled to vote. The discussion with the creditors on these matters went over some three pages of the minutes.
Mr C. Hogg, who is counsel for the debtor, seeks to challenge the resolutions passed at the meeting on several grounds. For the moment, the only issues that are before me for decision arise under s.64ZA of the Act, which provides inter alia:-

"(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), each creditor is

entitled to vote and has one vote.

...

(6) A creditor who has failed to give to the trustee a

statement in accordance with section 64D is not entitled to vote."

With respect to s.64ZA(4), Mr Hogg submitted that this subsection had the effect that a creditor was entitled to one vote only and that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Burton, L.R. v Wily, H.J and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1994] FCA 391
Decision Date: 25 MARCH 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Burton, L.R. v Wily, H.J. involved a dispute over the property rights of a bankrupt, specifically the entitlement to vote at a creditors' meeting, as determined by the quantum of the debt. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the right to vote at such a meeting is contingent on the amount of the debt held by a creditor and whether a proof of debt constitutes a sufficient written statement for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), section 64D.

The court had to address the interpretation of the Bankruptcy Act and determine the scope of a creditor's rights, particularly in relation to voting at a creditors' meeting. It was essential to establish if the size of the debt held by a creditor influenced their right to vote, and whether a proof of debt was adequate documentation to assert those rights. The court examined relevant statutory provisions and case law to ascertain the correct interpretation of the Act and its implications for the parties involved.

The court found that the entitlement to vote at a creditors' meeting is indeed determined by the quantum of the debt, aligning with the statutory provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. It was concluded that a proof of debt serves as a sufficient written statement for the purposes of section 64D. The court held that creditors holding debts of a certain minimum value have the right to vote, while those holding lesser amounts do not. This ruling clarified the conditions under which creditors can participate in voting at meetings and reinforced the statutory framework governing bankruptcy proceedings.

The final orders of the court affirmed the interpretation of the Bankruptcy Act and clarified the voting rights of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. The court's decision provided guidance on the interpretation of statutory provisions and reinforced the importance of adhering to the requirements set out in the Act for creditors seeking to exercise their rights.

Orders