Legal Research
Cases
Prentice v Wood

Prentice v Wood

Case [2002] FCA 214 8 March 2002

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Prentice v Wood [2002] FCA 214
BANKRUPTCY – appeal from decision of primary judge declaring that a Notice of Objection to Discharge was invalid and of no force and effect – whether Notice of Objection complied with s 149C(1)(b) and (c) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – whether Trustee provided reasons for objecting to the discharge from bankruptcy in accordance with s 149C(1)(c) – date upon which bankrupt was discharged under s 149
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 139P, 139S, 139ZG, 149(4), 149A, 149A(3), 149C, 149C(1), 149C(1)(b), 149C(1)(c), 149D, 149D(1), 149D(1)(f), 149F, 149F(1)(a), 149J, 149N, 149N(1)(b), 149N(1)(c), 306
Van Reesema v Official Receiver (1983) 50 ALR 253 cited
ReAnsett; ex parte Ansett v Pattison (1995) 56 FCR 526 cited
Re Hall [1994] 14 ACSR 488 cited
Inspector-General v Nelson (1998) 86 FCR 67 cited
Re Harris, ex parte Harris [1997] FCA 627 distinguished
MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE v RICHARD HERBERT BOYNE WOOD
N 1307 OF 2001
SPENDER, HELY & CONTI JJ
8 MARCH 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1307 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
APPELLANT

AND:

RICHARD HERBERT BOYNE WOOD
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER, HELY & CONTI JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

8 MARCH 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1307 OF 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
APPELLANT

AND:

RICHARD HERBERT BOYNE WOOD
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SPENDER, HELY & CONTI JJ

DATE:

8 MARCH 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

The respondent (“Mr Wood”) was made bankrupt on 20 August 1996. On 6 September 1996 Mr Wood filed a Statement of Affairs dated 31 August 1996 which recorded a deficiency of almost $500,000.
Subject to s 149A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”), Mr Wood would have been discharged from bankruptcy at the end of three years from the date on which he filed his Statement of Affairs, viz 6 September 1999.
The appellant (“The Trustee”) made the following assessments of contributions which the respondent was liable to make to his bankrupt estate pursuant to ss 139P and 139S of the Act:
Date               CAP Year                   Amount  Date payable
31.1.97           1996/97  $ 59,751.86              16.5.1997
10.2.98           1997/98  $ 59,688.52              16.5.1998
$119,440.38
A letter of 7 December 2000 from the Trustee to Mr Wood’s solicitor records the following receipts in the period up to 15 August 1997:
Recovery of debtors: $22,424.75
Contributions from Mr Wood: $31,100.00
On 31 August 1999 the Trustee wrote to Mr Wood stating that a Notice of Objection to Discharge in relation to his bankruptcy was enclosed with the letter, as well as a notice setting forth the options open to Mr Wood…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Prentice v Wood

Details

AGLC: Prentice v Wood [2002] FCA 214
Case: [2002] FCA 214
Decision Date: 8 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prentice and Wood were parties in a legal dispute concerning the discharge of bankruptcy. Prentice was the appellant, seeking to challenge the discharge of Wood from bankruptcy. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the primary judge had previously ruled in favor of Wood, declaring that he was discharged from bankruptcy. Prentice appealed this decision, arguing that the primary judge's findings and orders were incorrect.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the primary judge correctly determined that Wood's Notice of Objection to Discharge was invalid and whether the primary judge's declaration that Wood was discharged from bankruptcy was correct. Prentice argued that the primary judge had misapplied the law in reaching his decision, and that Wood was not, in fact, discharged from bankruptcy.

The court considered Prentice's arguments and found that the primary judge's decision was correct, albeit for different reasons than those given by the primary judge. The court concluded that the primary judge correctly found that the Notice of Objection to Discharge was invalid, and therefore, Wood was discharged from bankruptcy by force of the Act on 6 September 1999. The court found that the primary judge's declaration to that effect was correct and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed with costs, affirming the primary judge's decision that Wood was discharged from bankruptcy, and that the declarations and orders made by the primary judge were correct.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

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

There is no substance in this submission. Section 149A(3) assumes a valid notice which is cancelled by administrative action. The primary judge did not withdraw or cancel the notice; he found that it was of no force and effect at all. As there was no valid Notice of Objection to Discharge, Mr Wood was discharged from bankruptcy by force of the Act on 6 September 1999. The primary judge correctly made a declaration to that effect.Conclusion The appeal is from the declarations and orders made by the primary judge. As the Notice of Contention is upheld, those declarations and orders were correctly made, although not for the reasons given by the primary judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Prentice v Wood [2002] FCA 214

Most Recent Citation

Labocus Precious Metals Pty Ltd v Thomas [2007] FCA 1154

Cases citing this decision · 13 of 13 shown

McEwan v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
[2025] FCA 162 Para 8

…For the purpose of determining whether or not that notice of objection was invalid, the Court looks to the face of the notice: see Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296 ( Prentice ). Prentice must be read subject to an amendment made to the Act thereafter, seemingly in response to statements made in that case concerning…
Farmakis v Lo Pilato (Trustee)
[2023] FCA 1611 Para 38

…So much was held in Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296; [2002] FCA 214 ( Prentice ), where the Full Court (Spender, Hely and Conti JJ) stated at [17]: Whether a notice complies with s 149C should be apparent on the face of the notice. There is no occasion prior to any review of the Notice of Objection to examine…
Smith v Trustee of the Property of Richard John Smith (a Bankrupt)
[2023] FCA 300 Para 20

…citation of the s 149D ground’ purported to be relied upon by the Trustee in the First Notice of Objection; Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296; [2002] FCA 214 at [20]. ·The ‘reason’ in support of the ground of objection merely repeats the ground and does not provide a reason distinct from the ground of objection.…
Peled v Roufeil
[2017] FCCA 2342 Para 5

…Counsel for the Applicant also referred the Court to the Full Court’s statement in Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296 at 21: 21. In Inspector-General v Nelson (1998) 86 FCR 67 at 78 a Full Federal Court said that in order to “keep a person bankrupt” beyond the ordinary period, a trustee would need to have reasons dir…
Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Whitton
[2015] FCA 1169

…ankruptcy v Nelson (1998) 86 FCR 67 applied Macchia v Nilant (2001) 110 FCR 101 cited Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296 distinguished Quinn v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1996) 63 FCR 136 cited Re Ansett; Ex parte Ansett v Pattison (1995) 56 FCR 526 cited Re Crawford (Deceased); Ex parte the Trustee of the Offici…
Kneipp v Jonsson
[2013] FCCA 1695 Para 5

…icants had no reasonable prospect of success upon their claim. In the relevant part of his Judgment, after discussing the decision in Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296, a decision of the Full Court, his Honour said at [114]: “Clearly, the Trustee must have reasons for exercising the power under s 149B(1) and act in…
Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Whitton
[2011] FCA 1383 Para 21

…In Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296, the Full Court constituted by Spender, Hely and Conti JJ said this at [20] to [22] and [24]: 20.Section 149C(1)(c) requires the notice to state the reasons for objecting to the discharge on the ground relied upon. … There must be more than a recitation of the s 149D ground. … Se…
Khoury v Pascoe
[2009] FMCA 676 Para 1

…on is "a great power": Van Reesema v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1983) 69 FLR 424 at 430-431; 50 ALR 253 at 260; Prentice v Wood [2002] FCAFC 48; (2002) 119 FCR 296 at 300 [19]- [21]. 2. In Inspector-General in Bankruptcy v Nelson (1998) 86 FCR 67 the Court referred to s 149C as it then was and concluded that to…
Frost v Sheahan
[2008] FCA 1073 Para 10

…ce of objection is “a great power”: Van Reesema v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1983) 69 FLR 424 at 430-431; 50 ALR 253 at 260; Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296 at 300 [19]-[21]. 2.In Inspector-General in Bankruptcy v Nelson (1998) 86 FCR 67 the Court referred to s 149C as it then was and concluded that to make a…
Lockwood v Vince
[2007] FCA 1946 Para 26

…ee on this application to rely on other benefits, not referred to, to support his objection: see Re Hall (1994) 14 ACSR 488, 492-493; Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296, 299. If the trustee’s claims are correct then they would need to be dealt with by the trustee in a further notice of objection.…
Labocus Precious Metals Pty Ltd v Thomas
[2007] FCA 1154 Para 3

…enting a discharge from bankruptcy occurring by entering an objection to discharge. That expression was used by the Full Court in Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296 at 300 in discussing the power in s 149C(1)(c). I do not find those expressions of any particular assistance in construing ss 73 and 74 and in ascertaini…
Pascoe and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy and Anor
[2006] AATA 665

…w affirmed. Bankruptcy Act 1966 - ss 139U, 149B, 149C, 149D, 149N Ansett; Exparte Ansett v Pattison (1995) 56 FCR 526 Prentice v Wood (2002) 119 FCR 296 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 De Domenico v Marshall (1999) 94 FCR 97 Adams v Lambert (2006) 225 ALR 396 Project Blu…
Piyathilake v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 575 Para 14

…r for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2001) 109 FCR 424 at [428] and [444] and Wade of 2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 214 at [27].…

View all 13 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 3 of 3 shown

Re Harris, Graeme John Ex Parte Harris, Graeme John
[1997] FCA 627 Para 25

…Counsel for the Trustee called in aid the decision of Einfeld J in Re Harris, ex parte Harris [1997] FCA 627 (6 June 1997) as establishing that it is sufficient to comply with s 149C(1)(c) for the Trustee to disclose the “purpose or goal designed to be achieved by the objection”. That was, however, in the context…
Re Hall
[1994] FCA 625 Para 20

…Re Ansett; ex parte Ansett v Pattison (1995) 56 FCR 526 at 530 per Olney J. There must be more than a recitation of the s 149D ground: Re Hall [1994] 14 ACSR 488 at 493. Section 149C makes it clear that a Trustee filing a Notice of Objection to Discharge must have reasons for doing so, in addition to being sat…
Van Reesema v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
[1983] FCA 213 Para 19

…er to prevent a discharge from bankruptcy by operation of law by filing a Notice of Objection is “a great power”: Van Reesema v Official Receiver (1983) 50 ALR 253 at 260.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
139P, 139S, 139ZG, 14, 149(4), 149A, 149... 11 mentions (from Para 2)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1307 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE APPELLANT
AND:	RICHARD HERBERT BOYNE WOOD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SPENDER, HELY & CONTI JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	8 MARCH 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	SPENDER, HELY & CONTI JJ
DATE:	8 MARCH 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY