Re Tingley, W.F. Ex parte Tingley, W.F. v Totterdell, G.F

Case [1985] FCA 458


-'J

--"- "1

NOT INTENDED

FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

)

OF AUSTRALIA

1

GENERAL DIVISION

1

No. 292 of 1985

BANKRUPTCY

DISTRICT

1

OF THE STATE OF

)

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

1

RE

:

WILLIAM

FREDERICK

TINGLEY

Bankrupt

M PARTE: WILLIAM FREDEXICK TINGLEY

Applicant

and

GEOFFREY FRANK

T O m D E L L

J ~

"I-

?\ \

'\

Respondent

CORAM:

TOOHEY J.

l

22 July 1985

I

This application is based on 6.154 of the Bankruptcv Act

1966 which empowers the

Court where it is satisfied inter

alia

that, in the case of a debtor's petition the petition

ought not to

have been presented, to make an order annulling the

bankruptcy.

In my view, Mr. Tingley's petition ought not to have

been presented because there was in existence

at the time an order

of

the Family Court

of

Western Australia restraining him

from

presenting a petition pursuant to

6 . 5 5 of the Bankruptcy Act. If

any question arises

as to

the authority

of the Family Court

to

make such an order, it is

not a question to be resolved by this

Court sitting in bankruptcy. There

is an order

of

the Family

2 .

Court evidenced in the sealed order which has been tendered to

m .

In those circumstances, %t seems to me that the application properly falls within 6.154.

As

Mr. Black points

out,

I have a discretion in the

matter. But it seems to me that

I should exercise that discretion

in favour of the applicant for two reasons.

The first is that it

tends to resolve, to some extent at any rate, the position of the

applicant in relation to

the

order of the Family Court.

I say

that on the assumption that the petition was filed in ignorance of

the order of that Court.

Second,

Mr. Black on behalf of the

bankrupt, has given assurances to

Mr. Totterdell, the present

trustee,

and

to

the

creditors

generally

of

his

client's

willingness to co-operate in any sequestration proceedings that

may be taken

by any creditor. In those circumstances

I propose to

exercise

my

discretion and to make

an

order annulling the

bankruptcy.

That will be the order of the Court.

I certify that this and the preceding

page are a true copy o f the Ex Tempore

Reasons for Judgment herein of his

Honour Mr. Justice Toohey

Details
AGLC
Re Tingley, W.F. Ex parte Tingley, W.F. v Totterdell, G.F [1985] FCA 458
Case
[1985] FCA 458
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Tingley, W.F. Ex parte Tingley, W.F. v Totterdell, G.F. was heard in the Federal Court of Australia by Justice Toohey on 22 July 1985. The matter involved an application by William Frederick Tingley to annul his bankruptcy on the basis that his petition should not have been presented due to an existing order from the Family Court of Western Australia. The application was made under section 154 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, which allows the Court to annul a bankruptcy if it is satisfied that the petition ought not to have been presented.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Family Court order, which restrained Tingley from presenting a petition, precluded the presentation of the bankruptcy petition and thus warranted the annulment of the bankruptcy. Additionally, the court had to consider the exercise of its discretion under section 154 of the Bankruptcy Act in determining whether to annul the bankruptcy.

Justice Toohey found that the Family Court order did indeed prevent the presentation of the bankruptcy petition. He noted that the authority of the Family Court to make such an order was not a matter to be resolved by the Federal Court in this context. The existence of the Family Court order, as evidenced by the sealed order presented, was sufficient to support the annulment of the bankruptcy. In exercising his discretion, Toohey J was persuaded to annul the bankruptcy for two reasons: it would resolve the applicant's position in relation to the Family Court order, and Tingley had assured the trustee and creditors of his willingness to cooperate in any future sequestration proceedings. Consequently, the court ordered the annulment of the bankruptcy.

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.