Mohinder Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

[2009] HCASL 194

MOHINDER SINGH
v
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
[2009] HCASL 194
M49/2009

1. This application for special leave to appeal to this Court is related to two earlier applications for special leave.  In the first, Singh v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (Centrelink) [2005] HCATrans 759, the applicant sought leave to appeal from an unsuccessful review of Centrelink's decision of 4 November 1999, which required an insurer ("the insurer") to pay Centrelink $88,633.34 out of moneys it would otherwise have paid to the applicant. Special leave was refused with costs. The second, Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment & Workplace Relations [2008] HCASL 224, concerned the review of Centrelink's decision of 19 December 2005 that it had no jurisdiction to review its decision made on 4 November 1999. The application was dismissed.

1. The present application concerns the bankruptcy of the applicant. On 28 February 2008 the applicant became bankrupt as a result of a sequestration order made by a Registrar of the Federal Court on the petition of the first respondent ("the Department"). The petition was based on the applicant's failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice claiming $36,066.20 for legal costs sought as a result of cost orders in five proceedings in various courts. On 10 June 2008 the applicant paid $36,066.20 to the solicitors of the Department who forwarded the amount to the Official Trustee, the second respondent. However, that figure was not the total of the applicant's debts. Further, the applicant has not completed or lodged a statement of his affairs despite being required to do so, pursuant to s 54 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ("the Act"), within fourteen days of being notified of his bankruptcy and despite numerous requests that he do so. The applicant applied to the Federal Court seeking orders for annulment of the sequestration order, pursuant to ss 153A or 153B of the Act, and reimbursement of sums, $36,066.20, $10,000 and $4,180, from the first respondent.

1. On 29 September 2008, Goldberg J refused to make the orders sought. In relation to the annulment, his Honour held that a court could not order an annulment pursuant to s 153A and refused to order an annulment pursuant to s 153B as he was not satisfied that the sequestration order should not have been made. In relation to the requested reimbursement, his Honour held that $36,066.20 was properly vested in the Official Trustee pursuant to ss 58 and 116 of the Act; that $10,000 was presently held in the Federal Court as security for costs, not all of which have been determined, fixed or finalised; and that $4,180 was paid to the Department pursuant to a costs order made 8 November 2001 by the Full Court of the Federal Court. Further, his Honour refused to join the insurer and the applicant's former solicitor to the proceedings.

2. The Full Court of the Federal Court (Spender, Lander and Flick JJ) dismissed the applicant's appeal.  The Court held that Goldberg J had correctly proceeded with the application for annulment and that his refusal to join additional parties to the proceedings was "plainly right".  Further, the Court noted that the applicant's second ground of appeal, which pertained to the orders of Weinberg J in the Federal Court, had been the subject of an unsuccessful appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court and subsequently an unsuccessful application for special leave to appeal to the High Court[1].

   [1]Singh v Secretary, Department of Employment & Workplace Relations [2008] HCASL 224.

1. The applicant's amended draft notice of appeal fails to identify a special leave question and focuses upon Centrelink's decision of 4 November 1999, which has already been the subject of an unsuccessful application for special leave to appeal.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court and special leave should be refused.

2. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

W.M.C. Gummow
1 October 2009 S.M. Kiefel