Darcey, Re P.M. Ex Parte Pre-Term Foundation

Case [1986] FCA 622


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

)

-

RE :

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.

Details
AGLC
Darcey, Re P.M. Ex Parte Pre-Term Foundation [1986] FCA 622
Case
[1986] FCA 622
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re: Patrick Michael Darcey Ex Parte Pre-Term Foundation, the applicant, Patrick Michael Darcey, had been declared bankrupt by virtue of a sequestration order made by Evatt J. on October 28, 1986. An appeal against this order was lodged, and the matter before the court was a motion seeking either a suspension or a stay of the order pending the hearing of the appeal. The legal issues before the court involved the power of the court under the Australian Bankruptcy Law and Practice, particularly sections 43(2) and 58(1), and the case of Re Deriu (1970) 16 F.L.R. 420. The court had to determine whether the applicant had made out a case for the exercise of the court's discretion to make an order pending the appeal.

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.