Mulhern v Pearce

Case [2012] FCA 631


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mulhern v Pearce [2012] FCA 631

Citation: Mulhern v Pearce [2012] FCA 631
Parties: MICHAEL RICHARD MULHERN (A BANKRUPT) v MARK WILLIAM PEARCE AND ANDREW JOHN HEERS (TRUSTEES) and JOSEPH MICHAEL DODRILL
File number(s): QUD 244 of 2012
Judge: GREENWOOD J
Date of judgment: 19 June 2012
Catchwords: BANKRUPTCY – consideration of an application for review under s 178 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) of a decision of the trustees of a bankrupt refusing the bankrupt’s application for the return of passports and travel documentation – consideration of an application to extend time for making an application for leave to appeal – consideration of circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the applicant’s application for annulment of the bankruptcy under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act
Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 48, 153B, 178(1)
Federal Court Rules 2011, rules 36.01, 35.12, 35.13 and 35.14
Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2005, rules 7.02, 7.03
Cases cited: Re Tyndall (1977) 30 FLR 6 – cited
Re Hicks; Ex parte Lamb (1994) 217 ALR 195 – cited
Mulhern, in the matter of Mulhern (Bankrupt) v Pearce (Trustee) [2012] FCA 570 – cited and quoted
Pearce (Trustee) v Mulhern (Bankrupt) (No 4) [2012] FCA 54 – cited
Pearce v Mulhern [2010] FCA 446 – cited
Date of hearing: 5 June 2012
Date of last submissions: 5 June 2012
Place: Brisbane
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 52
Counsel for the Appellant: Appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr Lynch, Lynch Morgan Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 244 of 2012

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL RICHARD MULHERN (A BANKRUPT)
Applicant Appellant

AND:

MARK WILLIAM PEARCE AND ANDREW JOHN HEERS (TRUSTEES)
First Respondent

JOSEPH MICHAEL DODRILL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JUNE 2012

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application under rule 35.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to extend time for leave to appeal from orders of the Court made on 19 April 2012 is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent trustees of and incidental to the application to be taxed. 

3.The interlocutory application filed electronically on 31 May 2012 for review under s 178(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) of a decision of the trustees of the bankrupt is dismissed.

4.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent trustees of and incidental to the interlocutory application to be taxed.   

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 244 of 2012

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL RICHARD MULHERN (A BANKRUPT)
Applicant Appellant

AND:

MARK WILLIAM PEARCE AND ANDREW JOHN HEERS (TRUSTEES)
First Respondent

JOSEPH MICHAEL DODRILL
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE:

19 JUNE 2012

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. These proceedings concern two applications made by Mr Michael Richard Mulhern.  Both applications have been heard together. 

  2. The first application in time is an application under…

Continue reading Mulhern v Pearce

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mulhern v Pearce [2012] FCA 631
Case
[2012] FCA 631
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mulhern v Pearce involved the applicant, Mulhern, who was a bankrupt, seeking review of a decision made by the trustees of her bankruptcy to refuse her application for the return of her passports and travel documentation. Mulhern also sought an extension of time for making an application for leave to appeal, and an annulment of her bankruptcy under section 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The decision was brought before the Federal Court, which had to determine whether the trustees' decision was lawful and if the application for leave to appeal and annulment should be granted.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the trustees' decision to refuse the return of the applicant's passports and travel documentation was reasonable and lawful. The court also had to determine whether the applicant's application for an extension of time for leave to appeal was justified and whether the applicant's application for annulment of the bankruptcy was valid. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and the circumstances surrounding the case.

The court found that the trustees' decision to refuse the return of the applicant's passports and travel documentation was reasonable and lawful. The court also found that the applicant's application for an extension of time for leave to appeal was unjustified and that the applicant's application for annulment of the bankruptcy was invalid. The court dismissed the application for review under section 178(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal. The court also dismissed the applicant's application for annulment of the bankruptcy.

The court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent trustees of and incidental to the application to be taxed, and that the interlocutory application filed electronically on 31 May 2012 for review under section 178(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) of a decision of the trustees of the bankrupt was dismissed. The applicant also had to pay the costs of the respondent trustees of and incidental to the interlocutory application to be taxed. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application under rule 35.14 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 to extend time for leave to appeal from orders of the Court made on 19 April 2012 is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent trustees of and incidental to the application to be taxed.

3. The interlocutory application filed electronically on 31 May 2012 for review under s 178(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) of a decision of the trustees of the bankrupt is dismissed.

4. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent trustees of and incidental to the interlocutory application to be taxed.

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.