Goodridge, in the matter of the Estate of Goodridge (Bankrupt)

[2013] FCA 397

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Goodridge, in the matter of the Estate of Goodridge (Bankrupt) [2013] FCA 397

Citation:

Goodridge, in the matter of the Estate of Goodridge (Bankrupt) [2013] FCA 397

Parties:

ROSS IAN GOODRIDGE v TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF ROSS IAN GOODRIDGE

File number:

NSD 1482 of 2012

Judge:

GRIFFITHS J

Date of judgment:

30 April 2013

Catchwords:

BANKRUPTCY  - application for certain examination hearings to be stayed

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - costs – no order as to costs

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 81(8)
Privacy Act 1988  

Date of hearing:

30 April 2013

Place:

Sydney

Division:

GENERAL DIVISION

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

13

Counsel for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr S Aspinall

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Henry Davis York

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1482 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF BANKRUPT ESTATE OF ROSS IAN GOODRIDGE

BETWEEN:	ROSS IAN GOODRIDGE Applicant
AND:	TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF ROSS IAN GOODRIDGE Respondent

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 APRIL 2013
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The interim application dated 9 April 2013 be dismissed.

2.There be no order as to costs.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 1482 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF BANKRUPT ESTATE OF ROSS IAN GOODRIDGE

BETWEEN:	ROSS IAN GOODRIDGE Applicant
AND:	TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF ROSS IAN GOODRIDGE Respondent

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE:	30 APRIL 2013
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. An interim application has come before me today. The interim application was filed on 9 April 2013 by Mr Goodridge. The interim orders sought in that application are as follows:

   1.A declaration that pursuant to s 81(17) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 the applicant is entitled to inspect all notes taken down and signed by a person in pursuance to subsection (15), and the transcript of the evidence given at the examination without fee. 

   2.A declaration that pursuant to s 81(8) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 that the applicant may be represented by counsel of his choice and once counsel is so engage the respondent, when vacating and setting hearing dates is to have reasonable regard to the availability of that counsel. 

   3.An order that the respondent comply with the Privacy Act 1988 request made by the applicant by letter dated 27 March 2013. 

   4.The Examination Hearings of the applicant be stayed until further order of the Court. 

   5.Further or in the alternative the Examination Hearings of the applicant be adjourned to a date mutually convenient to the parties and their legal representatives. 

   6.An order pursuant to s 81(6) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 that the respondent pay the costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the hearing listed for 21 February 2013. 

   7.An order that any future examination hearing shall be held in public. 

   8.An order that the respondent pay the costs thrown away by the adjournment of the Examination Hearing. 

   9.Such further or other order the court thinks fit.

2. When the matter came on before me in my directions list this morning the parties indicated that they were in a position to deal only with that part of the application which relates to an order staying further examination hearings which are scheduled to take place commencing Friday, 3 May 2013.  

3. The background to the matter is set out in an affidavit sworn by Mr Goodridge. The trustee has already conducted certain examinations of both Mr Goodridge (who, incidentally, is a barrister), and also his now wife, Ms Clay. Those examinations were conducted on 22 and 23 November 2012.  

4. At the conclusion of the hearing on 23 November 2012, by consent of the parties which took into account the availability of their respective legal representatives, further examinations were scheduled to take place on 21 February 2013.

5. As I have indicated, Mr Goodridge is a barrister. He has given evidence, which I accept, that, relying upon the examinations taking place on the scheduled date of 21 February 2013, he regulated his affairs accordingly, in terms of his professional commitments and also his involvement in the resumed examination. I should add at this point that Mr Goodridge has retained a Mr Golledge of counsel to represent him in the examination as is his entitlement under s 81(8) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

6. It is evident that on or around 15 February 2013 the trustee wrote to a registrar of the Court asking that the date for the adjourned examination be further adjourned in order to enable the trustee to obtain further books from third parties which could assist in the ongoing examinations. Certain preferred dates were provided by the trustee to the registrar for the purpose of obtaining new dates. The letter in question informed the registrar that, upon confirmation of the dates for the examinations, the trustee would inform the examinees. It is evident that this correspondence was not copied simultaneously to Mr Goodridge. I accept his evidence that he only became aware of the trustee’s proposal to the registrar to have the matter further adjourned, at some point after 18 February 2013.

7. The registrar arranged for the trustee to be advised that the matter had been listed for a two-day examination starting on 3 May 2013 at 10.15 am. Mr Goodridge was then advised by the solicitors for the trustee, under cover of a letter dated 18 February 2013, that the examinations had been adjourned and were scheduled to resume on 3 May 2013 for two days. Mr Goodridge has given evidence, which I accept, that he had accepted a brief to appear on 3 May 2013 before he became aware of the new scheduled days and also that Mr Golledge, who represented him in the previous examination, was not available on 3 May 2013.  It is those matters which are primarily relied upon by Mr Goodridge in seeking to have the resumed examinations stayed.

8. As a result of various discussions between the parties and with some guidance provided by the Court, the parties were, during the course of today’s hearing, able to agree that the examinations should resume during the period 13 to 16 August 2013, subject of course to the availability of Registrar Segal or some other appropriate person to conduct the examination. I understand the examinations can now occur before Registrar Segal on 13 and 14 August 2013.

9. In those circumstances, it is not necessary for the Court to grant a formal stay, the parties having sensibly come to that arrangement themselves.

10. The interim application also requests some other relief, including in the nature of declaratory and other orders. As matters have transpired, it is now common ground that it is unnecessary for those matters to be the subject of any formal determination by the Court.

11. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

    1.The interim application dated 9 April 2013 be dismissed. 

    2.There be no order as to costs.

12. Insofar as the matter of costs is concerned, I believe that this is an appropriate case in which no order should be made. While it is evident that Mr Goodridge has been put to some considerable inconvenience and no doubt cost as a result of what I have to say is a somewhat unusual course of ex parte correspondence between the trustee and the registry, I nevertheless also take into account the fact that Mr Goodridge had been given approximately 70 days notice of the resumed examination. I also take into account the fact that on 3 December 2012 the trustee had indicated a willingness to allow Mr Goodridge to inspect a copy of the transcript of his examination, which was in the trustee’s possession.

13. For all these reasons, I think that the matter is one where it is not appropriate that one side should bear the costs of this interim application and accordingly I make no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Griffiths.

Associate:

Dated:       30 April 2013