FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| GARRETT v D.C.T. | [2005] FMCA 19 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Review of Registrar’s decision to make a sequestration order – extension of time required for review – prejudice to Trustee for work performed after expiry of time for review – no evidence that debtor solvent – application refused. |
Federal Magistrates Act, ss.103, 104
Bankruptcy Act 1966, ss.52, 188
Kyriackou v Shield Mercantile Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2004 FCA 2338]
Harrington v Lowe (1996) 190CLR 311
| Applicant: | ANDREW MORTON GARRETT |
| Respondent: | DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA |
| File No: | ADG 90 of 2004 |
| Delivered on: | 24 January 2005 |
| Delivered at: | Adelaide |
| Hearing date: | 7 December 2004 |
| Judgment of: | Lindsay FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Self represented |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Self represented |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Ross-Smith |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
That the application for extension of time to bring an application to review the decision of Registrar Christie of 24 September 2004 is refused.
That the Review filed on 2 November 2004 is hereby dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
ADG 90 of 2004
| ANDREW MORTON GARRETT |
Applicant
And
| DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for extension of time in relation to an application for review of a decision of a Registrar of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act.
The order sought to be reviewed is one made by Registrar Christie on 24 September 2004.
On that day Registrar Christie made a sequestration order against the estate of the respondent Garrett (the applicant in this application and hereinafter described as the applicant).
Registrar Christie on that day was exercising a power delegated to her pursuant to Section 103 of the Federal Magistrates Act and in particular a power set forth in schedule 4 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
The review is brought to this Court pursuant to Section 104 of the Federal Magistrates Act. Sub-section 2 of that section provides that the review is to be applied for within the time prescribed by the rules or within any further time allowed in accordance with the rules.
Reviews from a Registrar’s decision are referred to twice in the rules. Rule 29.04 dealing with bankruptcy proceedings generally provides that an application for review of a decision of a Registrar must be made within 21 days of the date of the decision and that the decision must be reviewed by the Court. Rule 20.01 in dealing specifically with Registrar’s powers provides that for the purposes of Section 104(2) of the Act the application for review must be made within 21 days. Sub-rule 2 provides that the said time may be extended by the Court or a Registrar on any terms as the Court or Registrar thinks fit.
The application was first listed before me on 16 November 2004. On that day the applicant was directed to file and serve…
Continue reading Garrett v D.C.T.
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Garrett v D.C.T. [2005] FMCA 19
- Case
- [2005] FMCA 19
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the application for an extension of time was made within a reasonable period, and if the circumstances justified such an extension. Additionally, the court needed to determine the validity of the grounds upon which the review was sought and whether the plaintiff had a valid basis for challenging the Registrar's decision. The court was required to balance the principles of procedural fairness with the importance of finality in judicial decisions.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the statutory provisions and case law regarding extensions of time for judicial review applications. It found that the application for an extension was not made within a reasonable period and did not meet the criteria for an extension. The court also held that the grounds for review did not provide a valid basis for challenging the decision. As a result, the application for an extension of time was refused, and the subsequent review application was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the need for compelling reasons to extend such deadlines.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the application for extension of time to bring an application to review the decision of Registrar Christie of 24 September 2004 is refused.
2.
That the Review filed on 2 November 2004 is hereby dismissed.
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.