Mayger v Prentice

Case [2000] FCA 99

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mayger v Prentice, in the matter of Mayger
[2000] FCA 99

NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER v MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE (IN THE MATTER OF NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER)
N 7101 OF 2000

NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER v MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE (IN THE MATTER OF NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER)
N 7091 OF 2000

GYLES J
SYDNEY
9 FEBRUARY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7101 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER
APPLICANT

AND:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE (IN THE MATTER OF NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER)
RESPONDENT

BETWEEN:

N 7091 OF 2000

NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER
APPLICANT

AND:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE (IN THE MATTER OF NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 FEBRUARY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Application dismissed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7101 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER
APPLICANT

AND:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE (IN THE MATTER OF NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER)
RESPONDENT

BETWEEN:

N 7091 OF 2000

NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER
APPLICANT

AND:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE (IN THE MATTER OF NEIL ALEXANDER MAYGER)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GYLES J

DATE:

9 FEBRUARY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application pursuant to s 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (“the Act”) to review the trustee's decision to refuse consent to the applicant to travel outside Australia. The matter has an unfortunate history. The matter first came before the Registrar of the Court on 8 February 2000 in matter number N7091 of 2000 in an application under s 139ZU of the Act. The Registrar pointed out that the section was not applicable to the applicant. The applicant thereupon urgently sought the consent of the trustee to travel, obtained an oral refusal confirmed by written memorandum, and then brought this application to review the trustee’s refusal.

  2. When the matter came before me yesterday afternoon the written note from the trustee indicated that reasons for his refusal would be provided.  Reasons were subsequently provided by the trustee to the Registrar of the Court and the applicant received a copy of those reasons.  Yesterday I gave a direction that the proceedings be adjourned until 2.15pm today on the basis that material would be served upon the trustee, and further that Mr Mayger ensure he filed an affidavit recounting his dealings with the trustee which are relevant to this application.  He has today sought leave to file in court an affidavit sworn by him today which I have read and considered along with the evidence that he filed yesterday.

  3. I say the procedural history is unfortunate because it involves the Court in reviewing a decision by a trustee which was only made yesterday, reasons for which were only received late yesterday, and in circumstances where the trustee declines to appear due to lack of funds.  From the affidavit evidence of the applicant and the letter from the trustee, it is…

Continue reading Mayger v Prentice

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mayger v Prentice [2000] FCA 99
Case
[2000] FCA 99
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Mayger, the applicant, and Prentice, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was a legal challenge to an order made by the respondent in their capacity as the Chief Commissioner of Police. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicant sought to overturn an order that had been made by the respondent, which was alleged to be unlawful, improper, or unjust. The applicant argued that the order was made without proper authority and without adequate justification, and that it had caused the applicant significant harm.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the order made by the respondent was valid, and whether it was made in accordance with the law. The court had to consider whether the respondent had the authority to make the order, and whether the order was procedurally fair. The court also had to determine whether the order was reasonable and proportionate, and whether it was based on relevant and sufficient evidence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the order had caused the applicant significant harm, and whether the harm was disproportionate to any public interest that the order was intended to serve.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions and common law principles. The court found that the order made by the respondent was valid, as it was made in accordance with the law and within the respondent's statutory authority. The court also found that the order was procedurally fair, as the applicant had been given an opportunity to make representations and had been afforded procedural justice. The court held that the order was reasonable and proportionate, and was based on relevant and sufficient evidence. The court further found that the harm caused to the applicant was not disproportionate to the public interest that the order was intended to serve. As a result, the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application 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

GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GYLES J

Full text does not contain this section.