Champion v Atkinson

Case

[1988] FCA 869

31 Mar 1988

No judgment structure available for this case.

,

1

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTFZALIA )

)

GENERAL DIVISION No. P 1591 of 1987
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT IN TEE 1
)
STATE OF NEW SOUTE WALES AND 1
I
TEE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY 1
Between:  LYNNE JOANNE CHAMPION

Debtor

-

And :  GEORGE ATKINSON

Creditor

CORAM: Einfeld J.

- DATE: 31 March 1988
PLACE: Sydney

EX-TEMPORE J[TDGMENT

This is an application under section 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (the
Act) by a bankrupt of two days, seeking the return or release of her
passport which is and has at relevant times been in the possession of
order to fulfil his functions.

the Official Receiver. The Official Receiver was at first inclined to
accede to the application. However, before being able to give effect to
that preliminary intention, information came to his notice suggesting,
as it happens correctly, that the bankrupt had not been frank and fully
forthcoming in providing her statement of affairs and other information
which the Official Receiver was entitled to and undoubtedly needed in

The information not supplied to the Official Receiver was a full statement of the debts which the bankrupt has incurred. Her statement of affairs indicated that she owed almost $41,000 together with an

indebtedness under a hire purchase agreement in respect of a Mercedes
motor vehicle of some $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 . She declared that her property was worth
a little over $ 2 0 . 0 0 0 but it appears that the vast majority of that is
her clothing and immediate personal effects. The consequence was that

there was a substantial deficiency in the estate of this bankrupt on her

own statement, but the deficiency now appears to be grossly understated

for a large number of other debts have now come to attention. There now

seems to be little doubt that at least $70,000 is in fact owing in one
form or another.

The bankrupt's application is simple. She says that she has an air ticket to fly to San Francisco by United Airlines in two days' time,that is on 2 April, wrongly described in her affidavit as 2 March.. She says that the air ticket has been paid for by a gentleman who is the vice president of an American computer spare parts company which operates in

San Francisco where he has lived for many years. Ms. Champion is flying
to San Francisco to marry this man and it is expected that upon her
arrival in San Francisco on 2 April, the announcement of their impending
marriage will be made public. The ticket was, she says, paid for by her
fiance in the United States and paid in American dollars and sent to
Australia. This ticket has been seen by the Official Receiver's office,
which does not challenge the bankrupt's assertions in this regard.
It is not the immediate intention of the bankrupt. therefore, to return

to Australia in the near future or at all, but she has supplied the address of her future husband's home where she expects to live in San Francisco and says that she is willing to return for whatever purpose is required under the Act should that become necessary. This would presumably be at her fiance's expense. The bankrupt says that when she leaves Australia she will eave with four suitcases of clothes and a dog and will be leaving behind her other assets apart from her jewellery

which she will presumably be carrying with her.
The bankrupt explains that the defects in her statement of affairs were
due to the fact it was completed on the same day on which the
sequestration order was made, that she was extremely upset, that she
went straight to the Official Receiver's office from the court, and that
in those circumstances she did not spend sufficient time or devote
sufficient care to the completion of the documents required of her. On
the other hand, it has emerged from the proceedings that she has always
been frank about her intention or wish to leave Australia after the
bankruptcy. both in her dealings with the Official Receiver's office
which commenced considerably before the sequestration order was

pronounced, and with the Court registry.

At the time the sequestration order was made, the bankrupt was not
represented and I am willing to accept that the pressure of the court
proceedings, the fact that she was alone and the fact that the

proceedings would undoubtedly have been strange, confusing and distressing would be reasons why she might not have been as complete in

the information supplied as the Act requires of her and of every
bankrupt.

There would seem to be little reason for, or little to be gained by, her not declaring that her bankruptcy was larger and her excess of

liabilities over assets was greater than she declared in the actual statement provided. Indeed, the fact that there has come to light subsequently, not least through the intervention of the petitioning creditor and the information which he has supplied, additional debts without any additional assets, tends to indicate that the chances of any of these creditors receiving any money at all in this matter is to all

intents and purposes nil. That situation has become more apparent, not
less apparent, since the disclosure of the additional debts.

The bankrupt has given evidence today in support of her application and has been cross-examined. She discloses that the majority, if not all, of her debts other than the petitioning creditor's debt and the first

mortgage on the house in Bellevue Bill which she owned in 1984 and 1985,

were undertaken or contracted when she was married to a man named Don Sekula (a marriage which took place in May 1985 in Australia), in relation to the abortive attempts of Mr Sekula to set up either here in Australia or in the United States a futures or some form of investment consultancy business. There seems little doubt on the evidence before me that the lifestyle followed by the bankrupt during her relatively short marriage to Mr Sekula was considerably more flamboyant than their

financial situation

at the time would otherwise have indicated was

remotely possible. In fact, like a distressing number of other people

in the community at the moment, it appears that the bankrupt and her

then husband lived their lives on other people's and not their own,

money, against the possibility, albeit in this particular case an
apparently hopeless possibility, that some business would emerge from

the clouds over some country or other that would enable these, or some of these, debts to be paid.In the event, of course, nothing did emerge. The marriage broke up; the former husband has disappeared; the debts

have grown and Ms. Champion has been left to enter into bankruptcy as a
result.
So far as I have been able to become aware in the short time available -
and the matter is being heard u gently on the eve of Easter, in order to
enable the bankrupt to know her position before the court adjourns for
the holiday period- this appears to be quite unique. I have been
referred to two cases in which similar applications have been made. Re -
Tyndall (1976-1978) 30 FLR 6 was a decision of Deane J then sitting in

the Federal Court. In this particular case, his Bonour approached the issue of whether a passport should be made available on the basis that it was not a question as to whether the Official Receiver has acted

unreasonably, absurdly or in bad faith in reaching the decision not to
release the passport, but whether the court in the broad discretion
provided for in section 178, regards it as a proper case for the refusal
or grant of leave to travel overseas.
The second case was Weiss v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1984) 1

FCR 40 , a decision of the Chief Justice of this Court. Sir Nigel Bowen

accepted, without expressly finding, that the reasoning of Deane J in

Tyndall was appropriate. Bowever, both of these cases dealt with

applications by bankrupts to leave for overseas for temporary purposes, both of them in relation to some business activities in which the

bankrupt wished or hoped to engage. This is the first case in which the
application has been made by someone who wishes to leave Australia

indefinitely and do so for entirely personal or domestic purposes.

It is also very unusual, even unique, that the application is being
made, so very shortly after the sequestration order has been pronounced,

in circumstances which would obviously severely restrict the Official

Receiver's office in being able even to know what questions to ask the

bankrupt, still less to be able to support the questions with the
results of external inquiries made in the normal course.
For those reasons this case appears to be only approachable on general
principles. Deane J in Tyndall at 10-11 said that such a matter was very
serious and I quote:
"Even though applications for such leave are not uncomn,
they must always be treated as being of fundamental

importance requiring careful consideration of all relevant

circumstances for the reason that they are ordinarily
related to the freedom of a subject, who is neither a
criminal nor under criminal restraint, to travel to pursue

his legitimate comnercial or personal desires."

There seems to me to be no doubt that Miss Champion's purpose in seeking

to travel is to pursue a legitimate personal desire. I have no reason to

l doubt that her intended marriage is real and is intended to be announced
i on 2 April with a view to its taking place at some future time. She says
that she is wearing an engagement ring to mark her betrothal. The
question therefore is whether this is a case in which all the relevant

circumstances or a balance of relevant circumstances point to the grant

rather than the refusal of permission. It is obviously unthinkable that
the court could preside over a situation in which a person was held in

substance under nationwide house arrest, unless there is some reason why

that restriction of movement should be imposed. It is a fundamental
right of a person in a democratic country to leave and re-enter his or
her country at will, although that problem is today somewhat complicated
by the requirement of the Government of the country that substantial
sums of money be paid by way of taxes not only to leave but to come
back.
On the assumption that Miss Champion can raise the S25 departure tax and
the $5 immigration fee, she will leave on Saturday if her application is
successful today. I can completely understand the decision of the

Official Receiver to change his mind in relation to the release of the

passport, having in mind the shortness of time that he has had to

examine the estate and to question the bankrupt. This is especially so
having in mind the defects that have appeared in the statement of
affairs and the offence or offences under the Act that have thereby been
disclosed.
In Weiss, Sir Nigel Bowen also had to deal with a case where various

offences against the Act relating to non-disclosure and concealment.,had

been revealed in the public examination of the bankrupt in that case.

However, his Honour went on at 43:
“It is a basic principle that a resident of Australia is

entitled to expect that he m y travel freely notwithstanding

the fact that he is a bankrupt provided it will not lead to
his staying overseas in order to defeat or delay his
creditors and provided it will not interfere with the due
administration of his bankrupt estate.“

I am persuaded that Miss Champion does not intend her trip overseas to

be for the purpose of delaying or defeating her creditors. I am also
persuaded that her departure will not materially interfere with the due

administration of her bankrupt estate. It would appear to be the case

that at least some of her debts are either jointly or partly owed also
by her former husband. Although the information concerning his

whereabouts is extremely sketchy, it does appear that he is still in Australia. Those creditors who will clearly not receive anything from the estate of Miss Champion might well be advised to look to Mr Sekula

for the possibilities in that direction. It may be that if Mr Sekula is

found, the Official Receiver will wish to subject him to a public

examination in which event it is likely that the assistance of Miss
Champion will be required to brief and instruct the Official Receiver in
some of the material that he would wish to ask. That information might
well be obtainable by letter, telephone, facsimile transmission, telex

or others of the wonders of this modern technological age. It might also

require that Miss Champion be here in which case she has undertaken on
oath to return to Australia whenever required and has, as I have said,
left the address where she can be contacted in the United States.

The question is whether those undertakings can be accepted and whether

they mean anything. It is very difficult in a case such as this to make
a final determination. As in any event there is only a limited time
provided by the Act for a refusal of the release of the passport, and

because it appears that both Miss Champion and other people have been

trying to find her former husband without success for some considerable
time, I cannot see how the refusal of the passport will make it more
likely that Mr Sekula will be found in the short term rather than in the

longer term when she would be entitled to have her passport as of right.

I am also satisfied that little will be gained by her remaining here in

terms of any information she can supply which might suggest that she

herself has or has access to assets which could assist the creditors in
obtaining some payment towards the debts that have been incurred.

I

- 9 -

For all those reasons it seems to me that it is just and equitable that

her passport be released. I say that not completely without doubt but I

feel that in the circumstances she has done her best now to be frank

with the Court and with the Official Receiver about the position, albeit

somewhat tardy and in a less satisfactory way than was desirable.
I order therefore that her passport be returned so as to enable her to
depart as planned on 2 April. I also order that within seven days of her

arrival in the United States, Miss Champion is to transmit to the

Official Receiver by the fastest available method the full name and

address of her proposed husband's home and office, his position in the

company, the facsimile and telex numbers of the business, the telephone

numbers of his home and his place of business, and statement of the

name under which he has his principal bank account together with the

name of the bank and its address. This I order not at all for the

purpose of suggesting that any of his assets have anything to do with

this bankruptcy but merely as an indication of good faith in the
circumstances. I further order that the Official Receiver supply a copy
of the transcript of today's proceedings to the bankrupt in the United
States as soon as it becomes available.
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0