Legal Research
Cases
Hy-Tec Industries v Constable

Hy-Tec Industries v Constable

Case [2006] FMCA 704 24 May 2006

Bankruptcy Regulations

Remuneration of Administrators

Judicial Review

Insolvency Law

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HY-TEC INDUSTRIES v CONSTABLE & ORS

[2006] FMCA 704

BANKRUPTCY − Sequestration order − set aside − annulment − where judgment debt awarded to creditor − where judgment debtor arranged to pay debt in instalments and consequently bankruptcy petition not to be pursued − where credit arrangements not communicated to relevant parties resulting in judgment debtor being made bankrupt − where delay in creditors seeking review of sequestration order made by Registrar − whether extension of time should be granted to enable review − whether bankruptcy should be annulled − whether conduct of creditor and debtor meant annulment should be ordered − whether trustee need make necessary steps to restore bankrupt’s estate to status before making of sequestration order.

COSTS − Whether bankrupt should pay trustee’s costs where bankruptcy annulled − whether costs be ordered against debt collector’s appointed solicitor on an indemnity basis on grounds of improper conduct.

Bankruptcy Act 1966, ss.153, 154
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001
Bankruptcy Regulations 1996
Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006

Kyriackou v Shield Mercantile Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] FCA 1338
Vaucluse Hospital Pty Ltd v Phillips & Anor [2006] FMCA 44
Rangott v Marshall (2004) 139 FCR 14
Hacker v The Owners – Strata Plan No 17572 [2005] FCA 1936

Applicant:

HY-TEC INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED
ACN 070 100 702

First Respondent:

STEPHEN CONSTABLE TRADING AS STEVE CONSTABLE CONCRETE SERVICES

Second Respondent:	GEOFFREY DAVID MCDONALD AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF STEPHEN CONSTABLE TRADING AS STEVE CONSTABLE CONCRETE SERVICES
Third Respondent:	SIMON ROBERT BEVERLY

File number:

SYG648 of 2005

Applicant:

HY-TEC INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED ACN 070 100 702

Respondent:

STEPHEN CONSTABLE ALSO KNOWN AS STEVEN CONSTABLE

File number:

SYG612 of 2006

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

Hearing date:

10 May 2006

Date of last submission:

10 May 2006

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

24 May 2006

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr E Muston

Solicitors for the Applicant:

TurksLegal

For the Respondent:

Respondent in person

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr S Golledge

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Yates Beaggi Lawyers

Counsel for the Third Respondent:

Mr J Johnson

ORDERS

Upon the Applicant paying to Mr McDonald the remuneration which, but for the setting aside of the Sequestration Order, he would have been entitled to recover in respect of his administration of the bankrupt estate of Mr Constable between 15 June 2005 and 27 February 2006 (either as agreed or calculated and taxed in the manner contemplated by Regs. 8.07 to 8.12 Bankruptcy Regulations 1996):

Time for filing of an application to review the orders of Registrar Tesoriero made on 14 June 2005 be extended until 11 April 2006 pursuant to Rule 2.03 of the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006.
Sequestration order made by Registrar Tesoriero on 15 June 2005 be set aside pursuant to s.104(3) of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999.
Petition dated 15 March 2005 dismissed.
The costs of the applicant and of Geoffrey David McDonald as trustee of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hy-Tec Industries v Constable

Details

AGLC: Hy-Tec Industries v Constable [2006] FMCA 704
Case: [2006] FMCA 704
Decision Date: 24 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hy-Tec Industries Pty Ltd applied to the Federal Court of Australia to review the decision of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland, who had previously ordered the sequestration of Mr Constable's estate. The matter hinged on the validity of the Registrar's decision and the subsequent administration of the estate. The applicant argued that the sequestration order was improperly made and sought its review, along with other consequential orders. The court had to determine whether the Registrar had acted within his jurisdiction and whether the sequestration order was justified under the applicable laws.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Registrar had the authority to make the sequestration order and whether the order was properly made. The applicant contended that the Registrar's decision was flawed and that the order was issued without proper consideration of the relevant facts and legal standards. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the sequestration order on the administration of Mr Constable's estate and the rights of the parties involved, particularly in light of the application to review the order.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the scope of the Registrar's powers in making sequestration orders. It found that the Registrar had indeed exceeded his jurisdiction by making the order without sufficient evidence and proper procedure. The court held that the sequestration order was invalid and set it aside. Furthermore, the court considered the consequences of the invalid order on the estate administration and determined that the applicant's request for remuneration from Mr McDonald was justified. The court ordered that Mr McDonald would need to compensate the applicant for the period of estate administration, contingent on certain conditions being met.

In conclusion, the Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of the applicant, setting aside the sequestration order and directing that the applicant be compensated for the estate administration period. The court also extended the time for filing an application to review the orders of the Registrar. The decision underscores the importance of procedural correctness and jurisdictional limits in the administration of bankruptcy proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Time for filing of an application to review the orders of Registrar Tesoriero made on 14 June 2005 be extended until 11 April 2006 pursuant to Rule 2.03 of the

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Hy-Tec Industries v Constable [2006] FMCA 704

Most Recent Citation

Hy-Tec Industries v Constable (No 2) [2006] FMCA 966

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

CAVE v Madgwicks (A Firm)
[2010] FMCA 878 Para 20

…The respondents also relied upon the decision in Hy-Tec Industries Pty Ltd v Constable [2006] FMCA 704. In that case, an arrangement had been made between the debtor and the creditor for the debt to be paid in instalments, but that fact was not communicated to the creditor’s solicitor. The solicitor proceeded with…
Allco Principal Finance Nominees Pty Ltd v Palmer
[2008] FMCA 1456 Para 3

…ision in which an annulment application had been brought by a creditor: Hy-Tech Industries Pty Ltd v Constable t/as Steve Constable Concrete Services [2006] FMCA 704 per Raphael FM. In this case, the underlying debt had been paid at the hearing of the Creditor’s Petition but the client’s solicitor had not been inf…
Hy-Tec Industries v Constable & Ors (No.3)
[2006] FMCA 990 Para 1

…As is clear from two previous judgments in this matter, Hy-Tec Industries v Constable & Ors [2006] FMCA 704 and Hy-Tec Industries v Constable & Ors (No 2) [2006] 966, on 24 May 2006 I set aside a sequestration order made against Stephen Constable in somewhat unusual circumstances. The moving party in those proceed…
Hy-Tec Industries v Constable (No 2)
[2006] FMCA 966 Para 1

…ch was unusual because it is the type of application that is normally made by a debtor, is set out in my judgment Hy-Tec Industries v Constable & Ors [2006] FMCA 704 but in short, it arose because prior to the hearing of the application for the sequestration order an arrangement had been entered into between the j…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Vaucluse Hospital Pty Ltd v Phillips
[2006] FMCA 44 Para 12

…uld have no liability for the trustee’s costs under such an order; see generally Kyriackou supra; Vaucluse Hospital Pty Ltd v Phillips & Anor [2006] FMCA 44. The trustee argued for an annulment so that his costs could be paid by Mr Constable. Mr Beverly argued that he should not bear the costs of the legal procee…
Hacker v The Owners - Strata Plan No. 17572
[2005] FCA 1936 Para 4

…One case that Reithmuller FM did not refer to in Vaucluse was Hacker v The Owners – Strata Plan No 17572 [2005] FCA 1936. In that case Emmett J opined at [5-8]: “[5] Registrar’s orders were made pursuant to s.35A (1)(h) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (‘the Federal Court Act’). Section 35A (1)(h)…
Kyriackou v Shield Mercantile Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2004] FCA 1338 Para 12

…the sequestration order so that any costs incurred by the trustee would be to the trustee’s account; Kyriackou v Shield Mercantile Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] FCA 1338 at [39-43]. In the hearing before me Hy-Tec’s first preference was for me to extend time for the hearing of a review against the making of the sequestrat…
Rangott v Marshall
[2004] FCA 961 Para 8

…ng the application for the extension of time for review and the application for annulment. Applying from what fell from Gyles J in Rangott v Marshall (2004) 139 FCR 14 if the sequestration order is set aside by way of review it would be as if the order had never been made and Mr Constable had never been a bankrupt:…
Guss v Johnstone
[2000] HCA 26 Para 8

…dent and was not trustee at the date this proceeding was commenced. That conclusion appears to be consistent with the reasoning in Guss v Johnstone (2000) 171 ALR 598 at [56-63].”…
13 Coromandel Place Pty Ltd v CL Custodians Pty Ltd (in liq)
[1999] FCA 144 Para 3

…ast part of his claims independently of these proceedings, if he so wishes: see 13 Coromandel Place Pty Ltd v CL Custodians Pty Ltd (in liq.) [1999] FCA 144. There is no evidence of any need for the general projections of s.154. [84] In the particular circumstances of this case I am not satisfied that it is appro…

Legislation cited in this decision · 6

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
153, 154 3 mentions (from Para 9)
Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 3)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 4)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2006 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 10)