FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Moore-McQuillan v Scott [2006] FCA 63
BANKRUPTCY – applicant convicted of offences under Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) – applicant ordered to pay costs of investigation and prosecution of offences – applicant subsequently became bankrupt – whether sum payable by way of costs order is a debt provable in bankruptcy – whether order should be made under s 60(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) staying any legal process against applicant in respect of the costs order
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Bankruptcy Act 1924 (Cth)
Bankruptcy Act 1924-1960 (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
Proceeds of Crime Regulations 2002 (Cth)
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA)
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA)
Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 1996 (SA)
Criminal Code (Qld)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
Game Act 1928 (Vic)Moore-McQuillan v WorkCover Corporation [2005] SASC 13 cited
Re Higgins; Ex parte Higgins and Nicholson (1984) 4 FCR 533 distinguished
Marshall v Western Australia (1998) 84 FCR 363 cited
Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL (1996) 185 CLR 124 cited
Re McMaster (1991) 105 ALR 156 cited
Re Bradbury; Ex Parte The King; Official Receiver (Respondent) (1931) 3 ABC 204 discussed
Re Caddies; Ex parte Stapleton (1962) 19 ABC 155 discussed
Commissioner for Motor Transport (NSW) v Train (1972) 127 CLR 396 cited
Re Hollis (1968) 15 FLR 386 cited
Re Lenske; Ex parte Lenske (1986) 9 FCR 532 followed
R v Civoniceva; Ex parte Attorney-General [1983] 2 Qd R 633 cited
Re Sutherland-Cropper (1985) 11 FCR 156 followed
Glass v Tarea Management (North Shore) Pty Ltd (in liq) (1990) 25 FCR 242 followed
Re Keogh; Ex Parte Keogh v Director of Public Prosecutions (1995) 61 FCR 591 followed
Re Lattouf (1994) 52 FCR 147 followed
Re Lattouf; Ex parte New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions v Lattouf [1995] FCA 752 followedTatt v New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions [1998] FCA 957 followed
Storey v Lane (1981) 147 CLR 549 referred toMARKHAM WAYNE MOORE-MCQUILLAN v ALAN SCOTT, WORKCOVER CORPORATION AND STEPHEN BRADY
SAD 100 of 2005
MANSFIELD J
10 FEBRUARY 2006
ADELAIDE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SAD 100 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
MARKHAM WAYNE MOORE-MCQUILLAN
APPLICANTAND:
ALAN SCOTT
FIRST RESPONDENTWORKCOVER CORPORATION
SECOND RESPONDENTSTEPHEN BRADY
THIRD RESPONDENTJUDGE:
MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- Alan Scott be substituted as the first respondent.
- Order under s 60(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) that any further legal process against the applicant under the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) in respect of the non-payment of the order made in the Magistrates Court of South Australia on 13 February 2004 whereby the applicant was ordered to pay to the second respondent the sum of $115,000 under s 120(3)(b) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) be stayed until further order.
- The second and third respondents are given leave to apply on reasonable notice to…
Continue reading Moore-McQuillan v Scott
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Moore-McQuillan v Scott [2006] FCA 63
- Case
- [2006] FCA 63
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the clerical error warranted the substitution of the first respondent and whether the applicant was entitled to a stay of further legal processes under the specified acts. The court had to consider the procedural correctness of the application and the merits of granting a stay to prevent potential injustice given the applicant's financial constraints.
In delivering the judgment, the court determined that the clerical error in the substitution of the first respondent was indeed sufficient grounds for the amendment. The court also considered the applicant's financial circumstances and the potential hardship that would result from the continuation of legal processes under the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA). The court found that the applicant had a legitimate case for a stay and issued the appropriate order. The second and third respondents were granted leave to apply on reasonable notice to vary or discharge the order, should circumstances change.
The final orders of the court included the substitution of Alan Scott as the first respondent, the stay of any further legal process against the applicant under the specified acts, and the leave for the second and third respondents to apply to vary or discharge the stay order if necessary.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Alan Scott be substituted as the first respondent.
2. Order under s 60(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) that any further legal process against the applicant under the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) in respect of the non-payment of the order made in the Magistrates Court of South Australia on 13 February 2004 whereby the applicant was ordered to pay to the second respondent the sum of $115,000 under s 120(3)(b) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) be stayed until further order.
3. The second and third respondents are given leave to apply on reasonable notice to vary or discharge this order.
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
Established by: MANSFIELD J
Full text does not contain this section.