McKinnon v Pattison (No.2)

Case [2009] FMCA 696


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McKINNON & ANOR v PATTISON (No.2) [2009] FMCA 696
BANKRUPTCY – Whether time extended for notice of taxation.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss.33(1)(c), 64ZBA, 162, 167
Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s.101
Penalty Interests Rate Act 1983 (Vic) s.2
Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) r.8.09
Aparatne v Tredula VG 7894 of 1998 (North J, unreported 18/12/1998)
Vince v Sellars (2004) FMCA 564
First Applicant: JEANETTE BEVERLY McKINNON
Second Applicant: DONALD NEIL McKINNON
Respondent: PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON
File Number: MLG 369 of 2009
Judgment of: Phipps FM
Hearing date: 19 June 2009
Date of Last Submission: 19 June 2009
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 19 June 2009

REPRESENTATION

The Applicants: Appearing in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M. Black
Solicitors for the Respondent: TurksLegal

ORDERS

  1. The application filed 6 April 2009 is dismissed.

  2. The Applicant’s pay the Respondent’s costs of the Application to Review fixed at $5,000 and the costs of $4,710 ordered by Registrar Moore on 25 May 2009.

  3. The operation of order 2 be stayed for 30 days.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG 369 of 2009

JEANETTE BEVERLY MCKINNON & DONALD NEIL McKINNON

Applicants

And

PAUL ANTHONY PATTISON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicants Mr and Mrs McKinnon apply for an extension of time in which they can give notice to a taxing officer to have their trustee in bankruptcy costs and expenses taxed.  The applicants were made bankrupt by sequestration order made on 26 August 2005.  The respondent Mr Pattison is the trustee in bankruptcy.

  2. In December of last year, Mr Pattison, pursuant to s.64ZBA of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) set in train the process by which the creditors of the estate might pass a resolution approving the trustees' remuneration without a meeting being held. Under s.162 of the Bankruptcy Act, the remuneration of the trustee may be fixed by resolution of creditors and s.64ZBA provides a process by which that resolution can be passed without the need for a meeting to be held.

  3. There are two creditors, according to Mr Pattison. They are the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Australian Taxation Office. There is no doubt about the Commonwealth Bank of Australia as a creditor because it obtained a judgment in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 27 June 2001 for an amount of $222,985.29. By the time a bankruptcy notice was issued on the 10 October 2009, interest had accrued of $59, 009.06. That is interest calculated in accordance with s.101 Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) at the rate prescribed by s.2 Penalty Interests Rate Act 1983 (Vic). 

  4. The Australian Taxation Office is accepted by Mr Pattison at $20,951.  Ms McKinnon, who speaks for both applicants, says that they dispute that amount, but the trustee has accepted it.  He has received approval of the resolution approving his remuneration.  He has received that approval from both Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Australian Taxation Office.  The amount is $137,000.

  5. On 8 December Mr Pattison sent the applicants,…

Continue reading McKinnon v Pattison (No.2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McKinnon v Pattison (No.2) [2009] FMCA 696
Case
[2009] FMCA 696
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McKinnon and Pattison were the parties involved in a dispute that was brought before the court. The nature of the dispute was not explicitly stated in the text, but it is understood that it involved an application filed by McKinnon on 6 April 2009. The court was required to decide on the legal issues presented in this application, as well as the costs associated with it. The court found that the application filed by McKinnon was to be dismissed, and that McKinnon would have to pay the Respondent's costs of the application to review, as well as the costs ordered by Registrar Moore on 25 May 2009.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the application filed by McKinnon did not meet the necessary requirements to be successful. The court found that McKinnon's application was not sufficient and did not warrant a favourable outcome. The court also took into consideration the costs that had been incurred by the Respondent due to the application, and deemed it necessary for McKinnon to pay these costs. The operation of order 2 was to be stayed for 30 days, giving McKinnon some time to arrange for the payment of the costs. Overall, the court's decision was based on the merits of the case and the legal requirements involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application filed 6 April 2009 is dismissed.

2.

The Applicant’s pay the Respondent’s costs of the Application to Review fixed at $5,000 and the costs of $4,710 ordered by Registrar Moore on 25 May 2009.

3.

The operation of order 2 be stayed for 30 days.

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.