Petrie, Trustee of the Property of Aitken (Bankrupt) v Aitken

The applicant, Natasha Margaret Petrie, as trustee of the property of the bankrupt Peter David Aitken, sought declarations regarding property ownership and orders for possession and sale. The respondents, Peter David Aitken, Judith Anne Winifred Aitken, and Henry Fotheringham Aitken, challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and sought leave for a non-lawyer, Mr Neil Piccinin, to represent them. The court was required to determine whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear the bankruptcy trustee's application and whether Mr Piccinin should be granted leave to appear for the respondents.

The court first addressed the jurisdictional challenge, which was based on arguments concerning the constitutional validity of legislation enacted under the style and title of the "Queen of Australia." The respondents contended that the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) and subsequent legislation were invalid, thereby invalidating the bankruptcy order and the court's jurisdiction. The court considered numerous High Court and other appellate decisions, including *Joosse v Australian Securities & Investments Commission* and *Helljay Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation*, which had consistently rejected similar arguments. These authorities established that changes to the monarch's style and titles were formal rather than substantive, did not alter the constitutional status of the Crown, and that legislation enacted under the "Queen of Australia" was valid. Consequently, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the trustee's application.

The court then considered the application for leave for Mr Piccinin to represent the respondents. This application was made out of time, and the court found no adequate explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the court examined the relevant provisions of the *Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999* (Cth) and the *Bankruptcy Act 1966* (Cth) regarding representation by non-lawyers. Section 44 of the *Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act* strictly limits who may represent a party, requiring authorisation under the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth), regulations, or another Commonwealth law. While the respondents relied on s 308(c) and (d) of the *Bankruptcy Act*, which permit acting by an agent or a person authorised to act for a person of unsound mind, the court found these provisions did not authorise Mr Piccinin's representation in this context. The medical evidence presented related to Mr Peter Aitken's depression and anxiety, and Mr Henry Aitken's infirmity, but did not establish that they were persons of unsound mind for the purposes of s 308(c), nor did the Powers of Attorney sufficiently establish Mr Piccinin as an agent under s 308(d) for the broad purposes of representing them in these proceedings.

The court dismissed the respondents' application for leave for Mr Piccinin to appear and refused an extension of time for them to file such an application. The court also made orders for the parties to file and serve amended notices and affidavits, and adjourned the application for further hearing.