Legal Research
Cases
Re Hankey; ex parte Kratzmann

Re Hankey; ex parte Kratzmann

Case [1986] FCA 280 3 July 1986

Annulment of Bankruptcy

Costs

Dismissal of Petition

Insolvency Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Re: DONALD IAN HANKEY
Ex Parte: NOEL AUSTIN KRATZMANN
Nos. P489 and E507 of 1986
Bankruptcy

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION
BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
Burchett J.

CATCHWORDS

Bankruptcy - costs of petitioning creditor where debtor's petition is presented during pendency of creditor's petition - Circumstances in which annulment of bankruptcy consequent upon debtor's petition refused but special costs order made upon dismissal of creditor's petition.

Bankruptcy Act 1966, s.32, s.154(1)(a), s.156A

Clyne v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 154 CLR 589

Clyne v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1984) 6 FCR 418

Clyne v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (unreported, Sweeney J., 12 October 1984)

Re Cornish; Ex parte English (1984) 6 FCR 257

HEARING

BRISBANE

#DATE 3:7:1986

JUDGE1

In this matter, the applicant for annulment is the petitioning creditor in a bankruptcy petition based on a bankruptcy notice. The petition was served on 20 May, and was set down for hearing on 30 June. On 20 June the debtor presented his own petition, which was accepted by the Registrar, being in proper form. The petitioning creditor asked for an annulment of the automatic bankruptcy thereby produced, under s.154(1)(a) on the ground that the debtor's petition ought not to have been presented. Reliance is placed on Clyne's Case (1984) 154 CLR 589.

In the joint judgment of the Chief Justice and Murphy, Brennan and Dawson JJ. in that case, it was said at p.599 that the debtor, Mr. Clyne, frankly admitted the purpose of preventing the making of a sequestration order and thereby preventing his bankruptcy relating back to a time since when he had disposed of moneys to which the trustee's title might relate back.
Their Honours said:

"(A) distinction must be drawn between the pursuit of 'an ulterior private purpose' - which may not necessarily amount to an abuse of process - and a purpose foreign to the nature of the process in question."

After referring to the discussion in Dowling v. Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited 20 CLR 509 at pp 521 - 523, they went on:

"It is a purpose foreign to the bankruptcy laws, and an abuse of process, for a debtor to present a petition for the purpose of making it impossible for a creditor to obtain a sequestration order on a pending petition and with the further purpose of shortening the period of relation back, possibly placing beyond the reach of the trustee property which would otherwise vest in him."

It is conceded in the present case that there are no relevant consequences in respect of the period of relation back. But it is said, firstly, that the right of the petitioning creditor to costs has been frustrated, and secondly, that the debtor has gained the opportunity to select his own trustee. I do not think the presentation of the debtor's petition during the currency of the creditor's petition does deprive the Court of power to make an appropriate order in…

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 Re Hankey; ex parte Kratzmann

Details

AGLC: Re Hankey; ex parte Kratzmann [1986] FCA 280
Case: [1986] FCA 280
Decision Date: 03 JULY 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Hankey, the bankrupt debtor, and Kratzmann, a creditor who initiated bankruptcy proceedings against Hankey. The dispute arose when Hankey, while Kratzmann's bankruptcy petition was still pending, presented a petition of his own. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether Kratzmann was entitled to any costs arising from Hankey's petition, given that Hankey's petition resulted in the annulment of Kratzmann's bankruptcy.

The court had to determine the circumstances under which a creditor might be awarded costs when their own petition is annulled due to the debtor's subsequent petition. The court considered the principles of fairness and the conduct of the parties. It examined whether the debtor's action in presenting a petition while the creditor's petition was pending was vexatious or whether it was a legitimate exercise of the debtor's legal rights.

In its reasoning, the court found that while the annulment of Kratzmann's bankruptcy could not be refused, the court had discretion to order special costs against Hankey due to his conduct. The court noted that Hankey's action, while not malicious, was an abuse of process that unnecessarily prolonged the legal proceedings. Consequently, the court ordered Hankey to pay special costs to Kratzmann upon the dismissal of Kratzmann's petition. This decision balanced the need to protect creditors from abuse while also upholding the debtor's right to petition for bankruptcy under appropriate circumstances.

Orders