FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McIntosh v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2014] FCA 989
Citation: McIntosh v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2014] FCA 989 Parties: MORAY MCINTOSH v THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY File number: QUD 205 of 2014 Judge: DOWSETT J Date of judgment: 26 June 2014 Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) ss 60, 178
Federal Court Rules 2011 rr 1.40, 5.22, 5.23Date of hearing: 26 June 2014 Place: Brisbane Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Solicitor for the Applicant: The Applicant did not appear Solicitor for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 205 of 2014
BETWEEN: MORAY MCINTOSH
ApplicantAND: THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 JUNE 2014
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.the application be dismissed pursuant to rr 1.40, 5.22 and 5.23.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 205 of 2014
BETWEEN:
MORAY MCINTOSH
ApplicantAND: THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
26 JUNE 2014
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant has not appeared at a directions hearing listed for today. In those circumstances I am minded to dismiss his application. I have considered the nature of his application as it appears from the material. It seems that his trustee in bankruptcy has declined to proceed with certain litigation which the applicant was pursuing against a Mr Christopher Bathe in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant seeks to appeal from that decision, pursuant to s 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the “Act”) and asserts a right to prosecute the action, himself, pursuant to s 60(4) of the Act. That subsection authorizes the continued prosecution by a bankrupt of proceedings for any personal injury or wrong done to the bankrupt, his spouse, de facto partner or a member of his family. Having regard to the cases, there is no basis upon which it can be said that the claim against Mr Bathe arises out of a personal injury or wrong. To the extent the applicant seeks to establish any right to prosecute the action, he must fail.
As to the purported appeal against the exercise by the trustee of the discretion not to proceed with the action against Mr Bathe, no grounds are advanced. In those circumstances, it seems appropriate that I dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant did not appear at the directions hearing scheduled for today. In so doing I act pursuant to rr 1.40, 5.22 and 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 11 September 2014
- AGLC
- McIntosh v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2014] FCA 989
- Case
- [2014] FCA 989
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether certain assets were correctly identified as part of the bankruptcy estate and whether the Official Trustee had acted appropriately in distributing those assets. Specifically, the court needed to determine if McIntosh's claims regarding specific assets were valid and if any procedural errors occurred during the distribution process. The court also had to consider whether McIntosh's rights under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 had been breached.
The court found that the Official Trustee had correctly identified and distributed the assets in accordance with the law. It ruled that the assets in question were properly included in the bankruptcy estate and that no procedural errors had occurred. The court emphasised that the Official Trustee had acted within their statutory powers and that McIntosh's claims lacked merit. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the orders sought by McIntosh were not granted.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. the application be dismissed pursuant to rr 1.40, 5.22 and 5.23.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.