Re Bankruptcy Act 1966 Re Estate of Julius Sefton Holt Re Anthony George Hodgson v Adams, John & ORs

[1981] FCA 274

c, , r

IK THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

>

CEI\;ER.+IL DIVISION	5
) No. 2s7 o f 1 9 s o
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF	1
THL ST.4TE OF VICTOKI'I	;

IN THE MATTER o f thc	Bankruptcy Act	1 9 6 6
and

I N THE	MATTER	o f	t h c E s t a t e	o f	J u l i u s S c f t o n
Holt

ULTIVEEK : ANTtlOhY GEORGE HODGSON (The Trus tce o r

0	t he p rope r ty	of	J u l l u s S e r t o n H o l t ,	a
Bankrupt)

Applicant

J O H N ADAMS,	SMAhE hIAGUIRE and KATHLLEK
MARY HOLT

Respondcnts

Coram: Fox J

2 4 August 1981

Mclhourne.

T h l s i s an appl ica t ion which secks t o havc s e t

a s i d e a summons i s s u e d by the Dcputy Regis t rar under 5. 81 c

o f thc Bankruptcy Act 1 9 6 0 undcr which t h e p r e s e n t a p p l i c a n t

i s r equ i r ed t o a t t end t o g lve ev idence and produce documcnts.

I n t h e a l t c r n a t l v e t o s e t t i n g a s l d e t h e summons, an o rde r i s

sough t t ha t i t s ope ra t ion be postponed. I have had a numbcr

o f a f f i d a v i t s p r e s e n t c d t o me I n suppor t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n ,

l n o p p o s i t i o n t o i t , and i n r e p l y . Thc case l ias put b y

counsel f o r t h e a p p l l c a n t on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e summons \<as

vexat ious and oppressive, o r a t l e a s t t h a t f u r t h e r m a t c r l a l

having been po in ted to o r made a v a l l a b l c i n t h e a f 1 i d a v l t

f i l e d by o r on behal f o f t h e a p p l i c a n t , t h a t some oppor tun i ty

shou ld be g iven t o t hc t ru s t ee , who i s the r c sponden t , t o

cons ide r t ha t ma te r i a l and fo l low up f u r t h e r l i n e s o f c n q u i r y

bcfore an examinat ion takes p lace .

!That was p o i n t e d t o I n p a r t i c u l a r i n t h e p r e s e n t

casc, and I have accepted i t for the purpose o f my conclus ion ,

1s t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s b c c n c o - o p e r a t i v e with t h e t r u s t c c ,

and a t l e a s t u n t i l t h e t i m e o f t h e p r c s c n t summons being

i s sucd , be l i eved h e h a d s u p p l i c d t h c t r u s t e e w i t h a l l i n f o r -

mat ion which thc la t ter had sought o r might I \ a n t . I t i s

a p p a r e n t n e v e r t h e l e s s t h a t t h c t r u s t e e s e e k s r u r t h e r clocunlcnts

and f u r t h c r m f o r m a t i o n . The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h c summons was

madc t o t h e Deputy R e g l s t r a r e x p a r t c on t h e hasis o i a w r i t t e n

s ta tement bv thc t ru s t ec a s t o t he g rounds , and r easons f o r

t h e i s s u i n g 01 t h e summons.

The ma t t e r \cas r e i e r r c d t o thc Court by anothcr

judge l a s t week. I am n o t s a t i s f i e d t h a t a case o f opprcss ion

has been made o u t o r t h a t t h e r e i s any other adequate reason

f o r s e t t i n g a s l d e t h e o r d e r o f t h e Deputy R e g l s t r a r .

There IS an unresolved qucstjon which has been

d i s c u s s e d i n t h e c a s e s a s t o whether the mat ter i s t o be

reconsidered de novo by the Cour t , o r whether on t h e o t h e r

hand it should be approachcd as an appcal f rom the exerclse o i

a d l s c r c t i o n g l v c n by s t a t u t e t o t h c R c g i s t r a r , o r , i n t h i s

c a s c , t h c Dcputy Regis t rar . There are other problems which I

have not myself resolvcd, namely thc qucst ion of disclosure

o r o t h e r m s e t o t h c r e c l p l c n t s o f t h e summons of thc

g rounds r e l i ed upon by t h c t r u s t c e . I n t h l s c o n n e c t i o n , t h e

working out I n a bankruptcy s i tua t lon of mat te rs d i scussed

i n Re Rol l s Royce Limited, (No. 3) ( 1 9 7 0 ) 1 Ch. 5 7 6 , c a l l s

f o r c o n s l d e r a t l o n . I have a l so been re fer red t o the judg-

ment of Lockhart J i n RC Cs idc l : ex pa r t e Andrew, ( 1 9 8 0 )

59 FLR 587.

.Is a t p r e s e n t a d v i s e d , it does not seem t o me t o be

t h e f u n c t i o n o f this Court o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r , or t h e Deputy

R e g i s t r a r , o r Reg l s t r a r , t o we igh up the pros and cons of the

need f o r t h e I s s u e o f a summons i n o r d c r t h a t t h c t r u s t c c

might car ry ou t h i s func t ions . As I have ind ica ted , the case

i s n o t r e a l l y p u t t o me on t h i s b a s i s . J do not know how t h e

Court could deal l i i th the mat ter i f it were. I a l so have somc

q u e s t i o n i n my orm mlnd as to whether one can proper ly o r

u s e f u l l y d e s c r i b e t h e e x e r c l s e o f t h c power undcr s.83 a s an

e x t r a o r d l n a r y c v e n t , o r t h c power a s an ex t r ao rd lna ry one .

I t has o f course long bcen recognlscd that a person being

examincd or rcquired to produce documents pursuant to that

s e c t l o n s h o u l d b c a p p r o p r l a t e l y p r o t e c t e d a g a ~ n s t any abuse o f

the porier. This has usually been done by c a r e f u l s u p e r v i s i o n

o f t h e e x a m i n a t i o n I t s e l f ; i n o t h e r w o r d s , t o b c a m a t t c r

r e l a t e d	more	t o	t h e	o p e r a t l o n o f	t h e	s . 8 1	summons	t h a n t o	i t s
i s s u e .

I t does seem i n t h e p r c s e n t c a s e t h a t i n t h e l i g h t

01 t h e a f f i d a v l t s whlch havc bcen f j l e d on beha l f o f thc

a p p l i c a n t , t h c t r u s t c c may wish to pu r sue enqu i r i c s be ro re any

- 4 -

cxamination under s.S1 does t ake p lace . As I understand

i t , thc product ion of fur thcr documcnts i s of fe red , and it

may wcl l be tha t any €ur ther documents the t rus tee )cants o r

th inks might be ava i lab le will bc produced. Whether o r no t

a l l ma t t e r s will b e d e a l t w l t h t o h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and I n

t h e p r o p e r i n t e r e s t s o f t h c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e i s

a m a t t e r t h a t hc w i l l have to dc tc rminc berore the exam-

m a t i o n t a k e s p l a c e .

I t h e r e f o r e f o r m a l l y i n t i m a t e t o t h c R e g i s t r a r t h a t

t h e t r u s t c e !\l11 be taking measures such as I have mentloncd,

and t h a t as t h e s e may takc some t ime, thc cxaminat ion undcr

s .81 should no t t ake p lace sooner than one month from today,

un le s s an e a r l i e r d a t c 1 s agreed upon by t h e p a r t i e s . The

o rde r I formal ly make i s t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p l l c a t l o n ,

A s I havc sa id many t i m e s , c o s t s a r e a d i f f i c u l t

m a t t e r ; nobody l i k e s h a v i n g an o r d e r f o r c o s t s madc a g a i n s t

them. I t h ink one should f o l l o w t h e o r d i n a r y r u l c u n l e s s

t h e r c 1s a c l e a r rcason f o r no t domg s o . I t hough t t ha t may

be c o n s t i t u t e d by t h e s o r t o f m a t t e r s I havc a l ready advcr ted

t o , b u t on r e f l e c t i o n WC a r e g e t t i n g a l m o s t t o 3 s c p a r a t e

c n q u l r y i f we are t o worh ou t w i th any p r c c i s i o n who m i g h t

rcasonably be expccted t o do what next.

The	appl ica t ion should be d i smissed wi th cos ts .
The	s . 8 1 summons a l s o 1s ad journed t o come be fo rc

me t h i s day , no t I n any expec ta t ion t ha t it would h e heard

today , bu t r a thc r , J imaginc, as a ma t t e r o r convcnience, and

I now a d j o u r n t h a t summons t o be hea rd bc fo re t hc Rcg i s t r a r

- 5 -

no sooner than onc month f rom toc l ay ' s da t e , un le s s t he pa r t i e s

agree on a n e a r l i e r h c a r l n g .

I certify that thls and the 4.

preceding peges are e t rue C O I ~ o f t h e

Reasons for Jucigment horeln of 111s IIOi1oLlr

Mr. Justice &X