Re Leiser, Ivor

Case [1983] FCA 288


!

RE:

LEISER

IVOR

ORDER

r

Judge makincr order:

Beaumont , J.

Date of order:

2 0 September, 1983.

I

where made

:

Sydney .

P

THE COURT ORDERS:

1.

I order

that

the

application

€or

dlschargc

be

refused.

2. I make no order as to costs.

IN THE FEDEML COURT O F AUSTRALIA

1

)

GENERAL DIVISION

)

1

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT

TEE STATE OF

) 1

NEW SOUTR WALES &VD

THE AUSTRALTAN

) )

TERRITORY

CAPITAL

1

No.VJ655 of 1981

RE :

IVOR

LEISER

corn<:

Beaumont, J.

DATED :

20 September, 1983.

(ex tempore)

WASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter I have already lndicated

tinat I

propose to refuse the applicatlon.

I wlll now give reasons

i i

This is an appllcation for discharge from bankruptcy.

I

The facts are that the bankrupt

was made bankrupt

by a

i

j

sequestration order dated

27 July, 1981.

No assets were

l

brought to the credlt of the estate and the bankrupt has

made

1

no contributions

on that account.

t

:

i

I

A number of creditors,

some external,

but in one case

l

i

the former wife

of the bankrupt,

have proved ln

estate.

the

In

t

i

round flgures the amounts of the

debts in which

proof has been

1 I

:

Y

!

- 2 -

Y

c

made exceed some

$65,000 of whlch some $16,000 conslsts of

a debt owed to the former wife of the bankrupt pursuant to a deed of settlcment executed when their marrlage broke up.

Orlglnally some $29,000 \cas owed by the bankrupt to

h l s wlfe

on that account, but various payments were made

In r ductlon

and the debc now stands

In the sum of approximately

$16,000

whlch was the sublect

of a -judgment obtained in the

Dlstrlcc

Court .

In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report of the Official

Receiver dated 30 August, 1983 there 1s set out in a form

whlch 1 would adopt for this purpose

mformation as to the

bankrupt's present financial and personal positlon. There 1s

also in that part of the report some expllcatlon

of the way in

which the bankrupt became financially embarrassed,

principally

by reason of his actlvities as a dlrector and shareholder of a

private company, Rosewear Pty. Limited. I will not repeat

that material here but would seek,

as it were,

to incorporate

it by reference.

The bankrupt has sworn an affidavlt today which has

been read in the appllcation

m whlch he indlcates his current

posltion. He says that he

1s presefltly reslding wlth hls

wife,

Ruth Leiser, but that he has suffered some health problems to

I I

the extent that he is receiving medical treatment

for ulcers.

I

In paragraph 8 of that affldavit he says that, If he

1 s now

discharged, it is not hls intention to enter into any buslness

on his own behalf, rather

It is more hls wlsh to continue as

!

- 3 -

he 1s at present but without thc stlgma

of bankruptcy. He refers

to the clrcumstance that he has four chlldren aged

23 years,

25 years and twlns,

28 years o€ age and some grandchlldren.

Reference was also made durlng the course

of the hearing to the

circumstance that one of his chlldren is to be marrled shortly

and the bankrupt wishes, perhaps understandably, in

hls later

years to

be free fron the stigma that

is attached through

bankruptcy.

In my oplnion this appllcatlon is premature. There

are, in my view, no speclal circumstances whlch would suggest

that the statutory period

of three years should not

run its

full course in the present case.

I may say that

If there had been no external creditors

or if soine assets had been brought

ln for the beneflt of

credltors or If some contrlbutlons had been

made, however modest,

my attltude may well have been dlfferent but

as matters stand

there are no assets, there are no contrlbutlons, there are

significant external credltors, and the application

is made

barely two years after the date

of the sequestration order.

In those circumstances I propose to refuse

th appllc-

ation and the orders

I make are as follows:

1.

I refuse

the

applicatlon

for

discharge.

2.

I make

no

order

as

to

costs.

3 .

I

order that the exhibits may be handed out.

I

I certlfy that i-lmzsd

t h e

?l preceding

pages are a true copy of

t h e reasons for

judgment herein of The Honourable

M r Justice Eeaumont.

S w y

Associale

Dated 17

cf+m I5S3

f

Details
AGLC
Re Leiser, Ivor [1983] FCA 288
Case
[1983] FCA 288
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, General Division, Bankruptcy District of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, the case of Re Leiser, Ivor, No. VJ655 of 1981, was heard by Justice Beaumont on 20 September 1983. Ivor Leiser applied for discharge from bankruptcy. The bankrupt was declared bankrupt by a sequestration order dated 27 July 1981, and no assets were brought to the credit of the estate. The creditors' claims, including a debt to the bankrupt's former wife, amounted to over $65,000, with $16,000 owed to the former wife. The Official Receiver's report detailed the bankrupt's financial situation and the reasons for his financial embarrassment.

The court was required to decide whether to grant the application for discharge from bankruptcy, considering the statutory period of three years from the sequestration order and the absence of any contributions or assets brought to the estate. The bankrupt's affidavit indicated that he wished to continue his current lifestyle without the stigma of bankruptcy, and he had no plans to engage in business activities. The court needed to assess whether the application was premature, given the circumstances of the case.

Justice Beaumont found the application to be premature. He noted that there were no special circumstances justifying an early discharge, as there were no assets or contributions, and there were significant external creditors. The application was made barely two years after the sequestration order. The court refused the application for discharge and made no order as to costs. Justice Beaumont ordered that the exhibits be handed out.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.