LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
| IN | THE FEDERAL | COURT OF AUSTRALIA | ) |
| DIVISION | GENERAL | ) |
| BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF NEW SOUTH WALES ) | No. P.721 of 1986 |
| AND THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY | ) | |
|
PATRICK MICHAEL
DARCEY
Appllcant
EX PARTE:
PRE-TERM FOUNDATION
Respondent
EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BURCHETT J.
| Patrick Mlchael Darcey was made bankrupt by virtue of a sequestration order whlch was made | by Evatt J. on 28 October |
1986. From that order, there has been an appeal lodged, and what
is now before me 1s a motion whlch seeks a suspension of the order or a stay of the order pendlng the hearing of the appeal. Some question 1 s ralsed ~n the Australian Bankruptcy Law and
| Practlce, Fifth | Editlon, | page | 100 and also | at page 126, |
concerning the power of the Court having regard partlcularly to
the provislons of s.43(2) and s.58(1), and also having regard to
what was sald in Re Deriu (1970) 16 F.L.R. 420. At page 422, the
present Chief Justlce of the High Court, when sltting as a judge
| _- . | -. |
| In the Federal Court | of Bankruptcy, drew attention to | the fact |
| i ! | r$d | I |
| ' | -, | -. | 1 - , |
J , . " n L A
P, \ > # P .L
i>L:mal 1"
| 7 - 1 - 7 |
| ' f - | 2 . |
| )-I |
that even the rescission O E a sequestration order would not put
an end to a bankruptcy, a proposltlon €or whlch he clted the
| support of Willlams J. | 1n Cameron v. Cole (1944) 68 C.L.R. | 5 7 1 at |
| page 610. |
| However, I | do not think that | ~n | thls case it | 1s |
| necessary to enter upon | the questlon of the extent of the Court's |
powers in thls regard, because it does not seem to me that a case
has been made out that there is an occaslon calling €or the
exerclse of my discretion, assuming that I have the appropriate
powers. It is accepted by the applicant, and indeed appears to
| be common ground, that there are | no other creditors than the |
petitioning creditor, and that the appllcant has no assets and elther no Income or no significant Income. That of course does not preclude, in itself, the possibillty that he may come Into some lnherltance, or in some other way his positlon may change, but at the present tlme he 1 s certainly not in the situatlon
that, for instance, might concelvably exist in some cases where a person carrying on business might be gravely embarrassed by a sequestration order, against whlch he mlght be appealing on bona fide grounds, and might seek some intervention of the Court. I
| say nothing about such | a | case. The present case | 1s totally |
different. The applicant is a member of a religious order, has taken vows which Include a vow of poverty, and appears not to have or to have had over a substantial period of years either assets or (at any rate, dlsposable) income.
I am unable to see that any ground has been made out on which I could properly exercise a discretion to make some order pendlng the hearing of the appeal. Were proceedlngs to be taken to seek, for example, to have a public examinatlon prlor to the hearing of the appeal, It may be that some lnterventlon might be called for, but it would not on the face of the matter, as I see it, require anything other than the exerclse of a discretlon as to whether any such examination should be adjourned. Wlthout attempting to prejudge such a matter, I can see that there might be powerful grounds for adjourning it. The question does not
| arise because, at least for the present, there seems to | be | no |
| suggestion that such an examlnation 1s about to be held. |
The applicant has filed a statement of affalrs, and it
1 s not suggested that that statement of affairs is other than
consistent wlth hls claimed lack of assets or income. Accordingly, I dismiss the appllcation whlch 1s presently before me, and I think the approprlate order to make at this stage,
| apart from dismisslng the application, | is simply to reserve the |
| costs for consideration after the appeal has been dealt wlth. | I |
| so order. |
| I | certify that this and the |
precedlng two ( 2 ) pages are a
| true copy of | the Reasons for |
Judgment herein of his Honour
Mr. Justice Burchett.
Associate
Dated: 1 December, 1986.
- AGLC
- Darcey, Re P.M. Ex Parte Pre-Term Foundation [1986] FCA 622
- Case
- [1986] FCA 622
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court, Justice Burchett, found that the applicant had not made out a case for the exercise of the court's discretion. The applicant had no other creditors besides the petitioning creditor, no assets, and either no income or no significant income. Although there was a possibility that the applicant might come into some inheritance or his situation might change, at the time, there was no evidence of such a possibility. The applicant was also a member of a religious order, having taken vows of poverty, and had not had any assets or disposable income for a substantial period of time. The court found that there was no ground on which it could properly exercise a discretion to make an order pending the hearing of the appeal. The applicant had filed a statement of affairs, and it was not suggested that it was inconsistent with the applicant's claimed lack of assets or income. The court dismissed the application and reserved the costs for consideration after the appeal had been dealt with.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.