Re Geyer, R.G. v Ex parte Geyer, R.G

[1985] FCA 611

BankruDtcv - appllcation for discharge - objections by creditors -

possible after acquired property - prlnciples to be applied.

Bankruptcv Act 1966 para.l16\2)(u) and s.150

I ..

FE: RONALLD GORDON GEYER - Bankrupt

EX PARTE: RONALD GORDON GEYER - Applicant

No. 603 of 1983

TOOHEY S.

PERTH

9 DECEMBER 1985

L

l

I NST INTEIJDFX FOR DISTRIBUTION

:<

IN THE FEDERAL COURT l .

:	aF AUSTRALLIB
I	G E N W L DIVISION No. 603 of 1983
I
I	BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT
l	OF THE STATE OF
j	WESTERN AUSTRALIA

RE : RONALD GORDON GEYER

Bankrupt

EX PARE: RONALD GORDON GEYES

Applicant	i
L ..

MINUTE OF ORDER

,	JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	TOOI-EY J.
DATE OF ORDER:	9 December 1985
WERE MADE:	Perth
I

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

I

The Court refuses to make an order of discharge.

I

i

I

i

i

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt

with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy Rules.

I

i

' I:

J..;

----v--

NOT INTENDFD FOR DISTRIBUTION

!.

IN THE FEDERAL	COURT	)
OF AUSTRALIA	)
GENERAL	DIVISION	) No. 603 of 1983

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT )

OF THE STATE OF )

WESTERN	AUSTRALIA	I
RE : RONALD GORDON GEYEX

Bankrupt , ...

M PARTE: RONALD GORDON GEYEX

Applicant *

CORAM: TOOHEY J.

9 December 1985

I

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ronald Gordon Geyer was made bankrupt on his own

petition on 8 September 1983. In the ordinary course he will not

!

be discharged from bankruptcy until September	1986.	However he	t
seeks an order for discharge at this stage.

The bankrupt sppeared in person. The Official Receiver

appeared in person. Paul Edward Ferguson, whose firm	P.	&	R.
Ferguson is the major creditor of the bankrupt, appeared	to L'

support a notice of intentlon to oppose the application for

discharge on the ground that the bankrupt "is an unfit person to

be discharqed from bankruptcy". Another creditor C. & R. Neill

also gave notice of intention to oppose the application on the

ground that "we have not received any full or part payment of the

debt owed to us ...'I. This creditor did not appear on the hearing

of the application for discharge.

..

! ';

' .

2.

The Official Receiver received proofs of debt amounting

to $30,629. Assets of the bankrupt were realized. producing an

amount of $5.727. The estimated value of unrealized assets is

nil. Dividends amounting to	10.49 cents In the dollar have been	,. L
!.i
paid to creditors.	1
,

The applicant has had a somewhat tangled financial

history. At the time of his bankruptcy he was unemployed and. was

receiving sickness benefits. In 1979. while working for the I-.

Department of Agriculture. he Injured his back and as a result was

on workers compensation for some 3 years. According to Mr. Geyer,

he was entitled to compensation of some $50.000 but is due to

receive only $19,000. He dld not explain with any clarity why he is to receive only $19.000 but the difference seems in part to be explained by payments of compensation (perhaps weekly payments)

, . z

already made to him by his employer.

In 1981 Mr. Geyer was farminq near Pingarinq and it was

at this tlme that he bought a Piper Cherokee aircraft from P. & R.

Ferguson for the sum of $15,000. He paid a deposit of $1,500 by

cheque. The cheque was dlshonoured but Mr. Geper made

arrangements for payment of the amount due. The balance of

purchase price was to be paid in February 1982 but it was never

paid. Unfortunately fo r P. & R. Ferguson. the bankrupt was siven

possession of the aircraft even before the deposit was

pald. Mr. Ferguson complained that various arrangements were made

by Mr. Geyer for payment of the balance but none of these

arrangements came to anything. H i s complaint that the bankrupt is

I

0

,

3.

I

an unfit person to be discharged from bankruptcy was based upon his dealings with Mr. Geyer over the aircraft, dealings whlch included several undertakings by the bankrupt which were not

honoured.

In 1982 Mr. Geyer moved to Mungari Station near

, -

Coolgardie. then part owned by one Howard Forpie. Mr. Geper

.I

'J'

claims that, by reason of moneys expended by him and work done on I

the property together with an arrangement for the payment of

further moneys, he was to obtain an interest in the station.

According to Mr. Geyer, his contribution of further moneys was to	. .
come from the expected workers compensation payout. In January	I. .

1983 Mr. Forqie was killed in an accident and it then emerged that i

the station was owned jointly by him and another person in South

Australia and that it was considerably in debt. It seems that

since 1983 Mr. Geyer has sought leual advice as to hls prospects

of enforcina his claim against the estate of Mr. Foraie but no

actlon has been taken on his behalf. Any riaht of action he has

I .

in this respect has vested in the Official Receiver	as trustee in
bankruptcy.

It emerged durinq the hearinq that Nr. Gever had. slnce

hls bankruptcy, made payment of some small amounts to particular

creditors. This 1 s a matter the Official Receiver may wish to

pursue but he did not suggest that it was relevant to the

application and I find it unnecessary to consider that matter.

In my view this is not a proper case for the qrantinp of

a discharge prior to the expiration of the statutory

4.

I l

period of 3 years. In Re Tarvydas (unreported decision delivered

25 November 1985) I dealt with the principles to be applied when a :

l discharge is sought prior to the statutory period. I shall not

I ..

repeat what is said there. But in my view Mr. Geyer has not ? -.

presented any cogent reason for granting this application.

I .

Indeed, it may well be in the interests of his creditors that he

l remaln bankrupt while the Official Receiver conducts

I i :

investigations in regard to a possible claim against the estate of

Mr. Foraie. The question of Mr. Geyer's entitlement to workers

I compensation is not one for the Official Receiver - see

para.l16(2)(g) of the Bankruptcv Act 1966.

I	The Official Receiver's report raises no matter within
I

sub-s.150(6) of the BankruptCV Act. But the fact remains that no

i	adequate reason has been offered why the Court should grant an
I
early discharae from bankruptcy. In the circumstances the
I
I	application must be dismissed.
I

i:

I certify that this and the preceding three

pages are a true copy of the reasons for

judgment herein	of his Honour	Mr. Justice
Toohey

,

11'

t;