Re Redmond, G.L.D Ex Parte Redmond, G.L.D

440

No. 590 of l983

EE :

GAPY

L I S L E

D A N I E L

FEEPIONU

Bankrupt

PARTE:

GARY

L I S L E

D A N I E L

REDMOND

-.L;

---

C . :	TOOHEY J.
24 June 1985

Thi

5 is

an application for a

dlscharg

in respect of a sequestration order made on 1 September 1983.

I n

the ordlnary course

5.149

of the Bankruptcy Act

1966 would effect

a discharue on 1 September 1986.

The question then is

- is there

anything In the circumstances of this case to warrant the granting

of a	discharge earller than the statutory period or perhaps, put

another way, 16 there any reason why the applicatlon should	n o t	be
acceded to at this stage?

The matter is the subject of objectlon

by one

of the

creditors but, as Mr D'Anqelo

of counsel acknowledges, there is

not a qreat deal he can add to what has already been said.

The

oblectlon is based on the amount of deficlency in the estate and propoeitions are unarguable 3s facts. It 1 s a question of what werght shnuld be attached fu them. Mr. rct-boy has pemted out, and there does not ;eem to be any reason why I should not accept

the

small

contribution

made

the

bankrupt.

Both

of those

the argument, that the bankruptcy of Mr.

Redmond was not brought

about by conduct

on his behalf

of a particularly reprehenslble

nature. One does

wonder why, glven his apparent circumstances at

the

time,

directors'

guarantees

were

thought

have

any

partlcular advantage to those

who were dealing wlth the companies

with which he was connected. His creditors are very substantial,

although not many

in number. But the malar creditors have not

been heard to object to the application for discharge.

It is

apparent that neither they

nor the objecting creditor is likely

receive anything from the continued bankruptcy of

Mr. Redmond and

I suppose

the

most

one

can

hope

for is

that

the

Official

Receiver's costs will be met, if not	fully,	at least to some
degree.

In the circumstances and having regard to

Mr. Redmond's

present employment and what I

take to be the position -

that a

discharge

from

bankruptcy

likely,

not

further

his

position with the company, at least to stabilise It - it seem6 to me that I ought to make a order for discharge. A question arises

as to whether I should attach any conditions to the order.

I am

not obliged to do so by reason of s.150(5) because those matters

have not been established, indeed they have not been asserted.

Nevertheless I have power under

sub-s.(9) either to refuse to make

an order of discharge,

make an order but suspend its operation

either unconditionally or subject to conditions.

The	only condltion that would seem to achieve any

purpose would be some prepayment of the amount which Mr. Redmond

3 .

might be expected

to contribute under the present arrangement to

pay $40	a month and that has been quantified by	Mr.	Corboy at
$560.

What I propose to do and what

I do is as follows:

make an order of discharge.

I suspend the order for one month and

require as

a condition of discharge that the bankrupt pay to the

Official Receiver the sum of

$ 5 6 0 .

c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s

and

the two

preceding

pages a r e a t rue copy of the Ex Tempore

Reasons f o r Judgment here in of

h i s Honour

M r .

J u s t i ce

TooEey.

/A&

(/ Associate

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Redmond, G.L.D Ex Parte Redmond, G.L.D involves an application for discharge from a sequestration order made on 1 September 1983. The application was made by Gary Lisle Daniel Redmond, the bankrupt, who sought an earlier discharge than the statutory period of one year, which would have ended on 1 September 1986. The matter was subject to an objection by one of the creditors, though the objections were limited in scope. The central issues before the court were whether there were sufficient grounds to warrant an earlier discharge and if any conditions should be attached to such a discharge.

The court considered the circumstances of the bankruptcy, including the deficiency in the estate and the bankrupt's contributions. It was noted that the bankrupt had made a small contribution and that there was no evidence to suggest that his bankruptcy resulted from particularly reprehensible conduct. The court also took into account the financial position of the major creditors and the likelihood that they would not benefit from continued bankruptcy. Redmond's current employment and the potential stabilizing effect of a discharge on his financial situation were additional factors considered by the court.

In deciding the application, the court exercised its discretion under the relevant sections of the Bankruptcy Act. It concluded that while it was not obligated to impose conditions under section 150(5) due to the absence of established or asserted matters, it had the power under section 150(9) to either refuse the discharge or to suspend its operation, possibly with conditions. The court determined that the only meaningful condition would involve a prepayment by Redmond. Consequently, the court ordered a discharge, suspended for one month, and required Redmond to pay $560 to the Official Receiver as a condition of discharge.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established