Re Burrowes, R.J. Ex parte Official Trustee in Bankruptcy

[1992] FCA 455

$ S S 9%

JUDGMENT No. ........ , ....... J .,........ ..

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EXERCISING FEDERAL JURISDICTION

IN BANKRUPTCY

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE

STATE OF VICTORIA

ROBERT JAMES BURROWES

Bankrupt

EX PARTE:THE OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY

JAS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE

OF ROBERT JAMES BURROWES1

Applicant

AND :  ROBERT JAMES BURROWES

COURT : NORTHROP J

PLACE :	MELBOURNE
m:	22 APRIL 1992

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, Robert James Burrowes had a sequestration

order made against his estate on 27 November 1991. As a
result, he became a bankrupt on that day. Under the

(b) furnish a copy of the statement to the trustee."

provisions of the Bankru~tcv Act 1966, certain duties are

imposed upon a bankrupt when a sequestration order is made and

in particular, section 54(1) of the Bankru~tcv Act provides:

"54(1) Where a sequestration order is made, the person

against whose estate it is made shall, within 14 days

from the day on which he is notified of the bankruptcy

(a) make out and file in the office of the Registrar for

the District in which the sequestration order was

made a statement of his affairs; and

Section 54(3) provides:

"(3) A bankrupt who fails to file a statement of affairs

as required by subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of
contempt of court."

The bankrupt has not filed his statement of affairs as required by s54.

Sections 27 and 28 of the Bankruutcv Act provide, in

substance, that the Federal Court of Australia has

jurisdiction in bankruptcy throughout Australia. Under s31 of

the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Federal Court of
Australia has power to punish contempts of its power and

authority (contempt of court) and can impose a fine or

imprisonment _or both.

In the present case the bankrupt had been notified of his

bankruptcy by letter dated 18 December 1991. He had had
interviews with an officer of the Official Trustee in

Bankruptcy. The bankrupt has made a very eloquent plea, both

to the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy and to the Court today

to the effect that because of his views on the spending of

money on warfare, he will not pay tax. I should add that the

sequestration order was made on the petition of the
Commissioner of Taxation for non-payment of tax. He will not
pay taxes because money so paid is used for war purposes and
as a matter of principle he says that he will not co-operate
with the Official Trustee and will not file his statement of
affairs because in so doing he would be acting against his
moral views in assisting the Official Trustee to obtain money
which could then be used for the purposes of helping to pay

for war. During the course of the hearing today, the bankrupt

read out a very eloquent explanation of why he is adopting
this particular course of not complying with the law and asks
the Court to express its views on his moral stand and, if need
be, to make orders accordingly.

It must be remembered that a court of law is in a rather

unique position.	The Court is required to apply the law to
the facts found in any particular case.	It is very useful to

refer to the oath of office of a judge when taking up the

position as a judge. The Judge is required to take an oath or

affirmation that he will do right to all manner of people according to law without fear or favour, affection or ill

will.	The primary obligation on the Court, therefore, is to
apply the law.	In this case the law is clear and unambiguous.

The law imposes an obligation on a bankrupt to do certain things. If the bankrupt does not do those things, he has

committed a contempt of court and the Court, in those

circumstances, must apply the law and record a conviction for

contempt of court.

A court is not free to express views on questions of

conscience in this regard and in the circumstances of this
case it is clear that Mr Burrowes, the bankrupt, is doing what
he is doing from a sense of obligation to his moral beliefs.
He realises that in so doing that he is committing a contempt
of court. He does it as a matter of principle, but the Court
also has an obligation to apply the law and as a matter of
principle the Court must apply the law. This is a case where

there has been a contempt of court. It is clear from what has

been said that it appears that there are no other debts owed
by the bankrupt. He is not paying the tax as a matter of
principle but that of itself is no excuse for not complying

with the bankruptcy law.

In all the circumstances, I find that the bankrupt has

committed a contempt of court and I will make a finding that he has so committed a contempt of court. The result is that he will be convicted of that offence, but in the circumstances

I propose to impose no punishment at all, neither imprisonment nor a fine. This is a case where it may be possible for the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, as a trustee of the estate of the bankrupt, to have discussions with Mr Burrowes to see if some solution can be achieved, but in the meantime it is important, in my view, that the Court should convict Mr Burrowes of the contempt of court which has been alleged and

proved against him.

The orders made are as follows:

1. That the bankrupt, Robert James Burrowes, committed a contempt of court in that he failed to comply with the requirements of section 54, subsection 1 of the

Bankru~tcv Act 1966 and records a conviction for contempt

of court.

1. That the applicant's costs of the application, dated 6 April 1992, be taxed and paid by the bankrupt.

I certify that this and the preceding four (4) pages are a
true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of the

Honourable Mr Justice R.M. Northrop.

Associate: /c-	K 2-G\
Date: /7 4	(9?7--