FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hamilton v Inspector-General in Bankruptcy [2009] FCA 592
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 33(1)(c), 155D
BARRY KENNETH HAMILTON v INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
TAD 16 of 2009
MARSHALL J
2 JUNE 2009
MELBOURNE (VIA VIDEOLINK TO HOBART)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
TAD 16 of 2009
BETWEEN: BARRY KENNETH HAMILTON
Applicant
AND: INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
Respondent
JUDGE:
MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 JUNE 2009
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE (VIA VIDEOLINK TO HOBART)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 33(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) the time provided by s 155D(1)(a) of the Act for the applicant to apply to the respondent to extend his registration as a trustee in bankruptcy is extended to 5 June 2009.
2.Upon the respondent extending the applicant’s registration as a trustee such registration will be renewed with effect from and including 29 March 2008.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
TAD 16 of 2009
BETWEEN: BARRY KENNETH HAMILTON
Applicant
AND: INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
Respondent
JUDGE:
MARSHALL J
DATE:
2 JUNE 2009
PLACE:
MELBOURNE (VIA VIDEOLINK TO HOBART)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant, Mr Barry Hamilton, applies for an extension of time to enable him to apply to extend his registration as a trustee under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”). The respondent supports the application. The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy is aware of the application and does not oppose it.
Mr Hamilton is a chartered accountant and practices as an insolvency practitioner from his office in Hobart. On 29 March 2005, Mr Hamilton became registered as a trustee under the Act. That registration expired on 29 March 2008. It did not come to Mr Hamilton’s attention until last week that his registration had expired.
Mr Hamilton did not apply to extend his registration because he failed to record the expiry date and had forgotten that his registration expired on 29 March 2008. He had retained his registration certificate in his office but did not display it in a prominent place.
Since 29 March 2008, Mr Hamilton has been the subject of two standard annual reviews by the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia (“ITSA”). During those annual reviews ITSA did not inform Mr Hamilton that his registration as a trustee had expired. ITSA would ordinarily have sent a reminder letter to Mr Hamilton but did not do so due to an administrative oversight.
I see no reason to refuse Mr Hamilton’s application. It is just and appropriate to grant his application for an extension of time within which to apply, albeit retrospectively, to extend his registration as a trustee; see s 33(1)(c) of the Act. The extension of time will apply for three years from 29 March 2008 in accordance with the intent of s 155D of the Act. Mr Hamilton is not indebted to ITSA or the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy in respect of realisation (estate) charges, interest or other costs.
If the extension were not granted, all work performed on bankrupt estates by Mr Hamilton since 29 March 2008 may not have any legal foundation. A refusal of any extension may require him to refund fees, adversely affecting his practice and lead to the termination of the employment of some of his staff. This result can and will be avoided by the Court granting the relief sought. The failure to apply for an extension was an oversight. No practical injustice arises to any other person by the making of the order sought by Mr Hamilton.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall. Associate:
Dated: 2 June 2009
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C Groves Solicitor for the Applicant: Dobson Mitchell & Allport Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Linden Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 2 June 2009 Date of Judgment: 2 June 2009
- AGLC
- Hamilton v Inspector-General in Bankruptcy [2009] FCA 592
- Case
- [2009] FCA 592
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the court had the discretion to extend the statutory time limit for the applicant to apply for an extension of his registration under section 33(1)(c) of the Act. The court was required to consider whether the circumstances of the case warranted such an extension and, if so, what period of extension would be appropriate. The applicant argued that exceptional circumstances justified the extension, citing personal and professional difficulties that had prevented him from applying within the prescribed time frame. The Inspector-General in Bankruptcy opposed the application, arguing that the statutory time limit should not be extended as it was intended to be a strict deadline.
The court found that the statutory time limit could indeed be extended under section 33(1)(c) of the Act, which provides that the court may, if it considers it just to do so, extend the time for doing any act or thing under the Act. The court considered the evidence provided by the applicant and found that the circumstances were exceptional and warranted an extension. The court acknowledged the difficulties faced by the applicant and considered it just to extend the time for the applicant to apply for an extension of his registration. The court set the extended deadline for the application to be made by 5 June 2009, and if the registration was extended by the Inspector-General, it would be renewed with effect from 29 March 2008.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Pursuant to s 33(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) the time provided by s 155D(1)(a) of the Act for the applicant to apply to the respondent to extend his registration as a trustee in bankruptcy is extended to 5 June 2009.
2. Upon the respondent extending the applicant’s registration as a trustee such registration will be renewed with effect from and including 29 March 2008.
Note:
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
Established by: MARSHALL J
Full text does not contain this section.