Lee v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

The Supreme Court of Western Australia, in a decision authored by Lundberg J, has dismissed four applications brought by Mr Jeffrey Stewart Lee, a bankrupt, for leave to proceed with various legal actions. Mr Lee sought to continue his actions pursuant to s 60(4)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act). The applications were heard on the papers, as Mr Lee did not appear, nor was there any representation on his behalf.

The proceedings in question were disparate in nature. They included a pre-action discovery application under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) (FOI Act), a substantive claim for damages for misleading or deceptive conduct and misfeasance in public office, an appeal against costs orders made in the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), and an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner to dismiss complaints made by Mr Lee under the FOI Act.

The central issue for determination was whether each of the proceedings was an action 'in respect of any personal injury or wrong done to the bankrupt' within the meaning of s 60(4)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act. In each case, the court held that the proceedings did not meet the statutory criteria.

The court observed that the statutory exception in s 60(4)(a) was intended to preserve the right of a bankrupt to seek compensation for personal injury or wrong from his or her creditors, rather than allowing the creditors to benefit from compensation for the bankrupt's injuries. The court found that each of Mr Lee's claims related to pecuniary losses, rather than any personal injury or wrong, and therefore did not fall within the statutory exception.

In each case, the court dismissed Mr Lee's application for leave to proceed and ordered that he pay the costs of the applications. In three of the four proceedings, the court also dismissed the proceedings. In the remaining proceeding, the court ordered that the parties be given an opportunity to make further submissions as to whether the action should be dismissed, or merely stayed.

The orders made by the court reflect the need to balance the interests of the bankrupt, the trustee in bankruptcy, and the defendants, while also considering the principles of res judicata and the potential for prejudice to the defendants if the actions were merely stayed.