Re Van Haeff, Robert William Ex Parte Lawson, George Eric

[1983] FCA 202

;J",N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1 1

DIVISION GENERAL 1 1

BANKRUPTCY	D I S T R I C T	O F	THE	1	No. SQ 103 of 1982	I.
)

SCUTHERN D I S T R I C T I N THE 1 1

QUEENSLAND OF STATE )

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 135

AND FOR ORDERS

r e : ROBERT WILLIAN VAN HAEFF

B a n k r u p t

E x parte: GORDON E R I C LAWSON

A p p l i c a n t

ROBERT WILLIAM VAN HAEFF

5 -

R e s p o n d e n t

MORLING J.

15 A u g u s t 1983

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

I propose t o a m e n d the a p p l i c a t l o n by a l t e r i n g

paragraph 2 where secondly appearing t o read paragraph 3 and

paragraph 3 t q read paragraph 4.

T h i s i s a n a p p l l c a t i o n by Gordon E r i c L a w s o n ,

t r u s t e e of t h e p r o p e r t y of R o b e r t W i l l l a m V a n H a e f f , a

bankrupt . The t rus tee seeks the f o l l o w i n g orders:

L .

b

1. Tha t t he t r u s t e e h a v e l e a v e t o s e l l b y

p r l v e t e c o n t r a c t t h e p r o p e r t y o f the

bankrupt be ing those l a n d s described as

lo t s 75, 76, 7 7 , 78 and 79 on r e g i s t e r e d

p lan number 149387, County of S t a n l e y ,

P a r i s h of Mackenzle, volume 5422, fol los

196, 197, 198, 199 and 200 and s i t u a t e d a t

Loganholme i n the S t a t e of Queensland.

That 2. the bankrupt wi hin seven days

d e l i v e r t o the t r u s t e e the d u p l i c a t e

c e r t i f i c a t e s o f t i t l e for t h e l a n d s

d e s c r i b e d a s lo t s 76 and 77 on r e g l s t e r e d

p l a n n u m b e r 1 4 9 3 8 7 , C o u n t y o f S t a n l e y ,

P a r i s h of Mackenzle, c e r t i f i c a t e s of t i t l e

volume 5422 fol ios 197 and 198.

3 . T h a t t h e t r u s t e e p a y d o o u t of the

p r o p e r t y o f the b a n k r u p t t h e c o s t s of and

l n c i d e n t a l	t o	this	a p p l i c a t l o n	t o	be
t axed .

4 . S u c h f u r t h e r o r o ther o r d e r as t o t he

cour t may seem meet.

I n suppor t of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n the t r u s t e e h a s sworn

two a f f i d a v l t s . I was Informed from t h e bar t a b l e , without

o b j e c t i o n , t h a t t h e s e a f f i d a v i t s were served on the bankrup t

on 18 Ju ly 1983. M r Van Haeff Informed me t h a t he f l r s t

gave notice r e q u i r i n g Mr Lawson t o a t t e n d for cross-

exammation on F r l d a y l a s t , 1 2 August.

3 .

6

Without going t o t h e d e t a i l o f M r Lawson' S

a f f i d a v i t s , t h e y set o u t a good d e a l o f m a t e r i a l a s t o which

t h e r e w o u l d a p p e a r t o m e t o b e n o p o s s l b i l l t y o f r e a l

d i s p u t e . F o r i n s t a n c e , he s e t s o u t t he maklng of t h e

s e q u e s t r a t i o n order , c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w l t h t h e b a n k r u p t -

d e t a i l s o f l a n d h o l d i n g and the l i k e . H e a l so annexes t o

h i s a f f l d a v l t s c o n t r a c t s i n t o w h i c h h e p r o p o s e s t o e n t e r .

M r Van H a e f f , w h o a p p e a r e d i n p e r s o n , s o u g h t t o

h a v e t h e a f f i d a v i t s r e j e c t e d b e c a u s e Mr Lawson was n o t

a v a l l a b l e t o be cross-examlned. Apparently M r Lawson is

overseas and will n o t be back I n A u s t r a l i a u n t i l some d a t e

l n October next .

I n an e f for t t o e l l c i t t h e m a t t e r s upon which M r

Van Haeff des i red t o cross-examine M r Lawson, I asked hlm t o

s t a t e what those matters were. Although he said he had some

hundreds of matters t o r a i s e t h e p r i n c l p a l m a t t e r s appear t o

be m a t t e r s s u c h a s t h a t Mr Lawson i s n o t I n f a c t h i s

t rus tee : t ha t t h e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e l a n d which M r Lawson

p r o p o s e s t o se l l 1s " h o p e l e s s l y l o w " : t h a t t h e r e a r e no

proven 'ebts i n h i s b a n k r u p t ' s estate: t h a t t h e

s e q u e s t r a t i o n . o r d e r was made w i t h o u t l e g a l j u s t i f l c a t i o n

a n d , i n p a r t l c u l a r , t h a t t h e j u d g e who made i t had no

j u r i s d l c t i o n to make it: t h a t h e r e a s o n s why M r Lawson

wants t o s e l l the l a n d a r e I n v a l i d ; a n d t h a t t h e b a n k r u p t

does not have the t l t l e deeds r e fe r r ed t o i n t h e a f f i d a v l t .

i

!

I

4.

R u l e 135 sub-rules 1 and 2 p rov lde as fol lows:

"135 (1) Where a p a r t y t o a proceeding has

served on another par ty t o the p roceed ing a copy of

an a . E i d a v i t f l l e d b y t h a t f i r s t - m e n t i o n e d p a r t y i n

conner ion wi th the proceeding , the second-mentioned

p a r t y may, a r easonab le time b e f o r e t h e d a t e f i x e d

f o r t h e h e a r i n g o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g , s e r v e o n t h e

f i r s t -men t ioned pa r ty a n o t l c e i n w r i t i n g r e q u i r l n g

p r o d u c t i o n t h e of the deponent for c ross -

examinat ion on the hear ing.

135 ( 2 ) Where a not ice under sub- ru le (1)

has been served on a p a r t y who f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t ,

the a f f i d v i t s h a l l n o t be used as ev idence un less

the deponent i s produced for cross-examlnat ion

be fo re t he Cour t or t h e C o u r t g i v e s s p e c i a l l e a v e

t o use the a f f i d a v i t . 'I

I s h o u l d s t a t e t h a t , a l t h o u g h the a p p l l c a t i o n was

made on 6 J u l y 1 9 8 3 , t h e b a n k r u p t h a s n o t f l l e d p u r s u a n t t o

r u l e 106 a n y n o t i c e o f o p p o s l t i o n t o the a p p l i c a t l o n , n o r

h a s h e f i l e d a n y a f f i d a v i t i n r e p l y . There i s n o d o u b t

t h a t , n o r m a l l y t h e a f f i d a v i t of a deponent who i s r e q u i r e d

t o a t t e n d f o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be a d m i t t e d i n

evidence, i f h e d o e s n o t p r e s e n t himself f o r cross-

examination. B u t t h i s is n o t a n i n v a r i a b l e r u l e . Rule 135

sub-rules (1) and ( 2 ) make e x p r e s s p r o v i s l o n t o t h e c o n t r a r y

i n a p p r o p r l a t e c a s e s .

-

I n my v i e w t h i s i s n o t a n a p p r o p r l a t e c a s e t o

r e q u i r e M r Lawson t o a t t e n d f o r c r o s s - e x a m i n a t l o n . I n t h e

f irst p l ace , t he bankrup t wa i t ed un t i l 1 2 August t o g i v e a

n o t i c e r e q u l r i n g h i m t o a t t e n d . That is t o s a y , h e w a l t e d

5.

&til t h r e e d a y s b e f o r e	the	r e t u r n d a t e	for	h e a r l n g o f t h i s
a p p l i c a t i o n .

In t he s econd p l ace , havmg r ega rd t o the contents

o f M r Lawson' S a f f i d a v i t and t o Che m a t t e r s upon which M r

Van Haef f des i r e s t o q u e s t l o n hlm, I t h i n k tha t it would be

p rope r fo r m e t o e x e r c l s e my d i s c r e t i o n u n d e r r u l e 1 3 5 ( 2 ) t o

permit the a p p l l c a n t t o u s e the a f f l d a v i t s . T h e r e i s no

d o u b t t h a t I h a v e s u c h a d l s c r e t l o n e v e n a p a r t from t h e

e x i s t e n c e o f r u l e 135. See re A Debtor (Number 37 of 1 3 7 6

Liverpool )	ex	par te	Taylor	v The Debtor	(1980)	1 A l l E.R.
129.

The one mat te r which has exerc ised my mind I n this

r e s p e c t i s t h e c l r c m s t a n c e t h a t M r Lawson has annexed a

v a l u a t l o n t o one o f h i s a f f i d a v i t s . Had I t h o u g h t t h a t the

bankrupt would be p re jud iced by r e l i ance by M r Lawson on the

v a l u a t i o n , I would h a v e , a s a term of permi t t lng M r Andrews

t o u s e the a f f l d a v i t , r e q u i r e d the v a l u e r t o a t t e n d so t h a t

he could be quest ioned on h i s v a l u a t l o n .

B u t I do no t t h lnk It i s necessa ry i n the interests

o f ~ u s t l c e t h a t I should impose such a term. There i s no

sugges t lon from t h e b a n k r u p t h a t h e wishes t o place any

ev idence be fo re t he court d i s p u t m g t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

t h e v a l u a t i o n . H e has had an adequate oppor tuni ty t o r a i s e

t he v a l u a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y a s a m a t t e r u p o n whlch he

6.

1

i e l i e s i n oppos i t i on t o the appl lca t ion . Moreover , It h a s

l.

t o b e	remembered t h a t all t h a t M r Lawson has done i s t o
a n n e x e	t h e v a l u e r ' S v a l u a t i o n t o h i s own a f f i d a v i t . M r
Lawson	d o e s n o t p u r p o r t t o b e a va lue r h imse l f and t h e r e f o r e

I can see pu rpose no i n hlm be lng p re sen t t o b e

cross-examined on m a t t e r s of v a l u a t i o n .

The a p p l l c a n t a l s o relies upon t h e a f f i d a v i t o f M r

T lmothy Dav id Fe r r i e r . Aga in , no n o t i c e t o a t t e n d f o r

cross-examinatlon was g l v e n t o M r F e r r i e r u n t r l las t F r iday .

A l l t h e c o n s l d e r a t l o n s t o w h i c h I h a v e a l r e a d y r e f e r r e d

apply a for t lo r l t o Mr F e r r i e r . It i s q u i t e a p p a r e n t t o m e

t h a t lf t h i s deponen t were pe rmi t t ed to be cross-examined he

would be asked	ques t ions	which	could	no	t	poss lb ly	have	any
r

re levance t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n and could only prolong It.

i

Q u i t e a p a r t from t h a t , I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t Mr Van

Haeff d o e s n o t s u f f e r a n y prejudice from b e m g unable t o

cross-examine Mr F e r r i e r . I should I n t h i s respect n o t e

t h a t t h e b a n k r u p t h a s s t a t e d from t h e bar t a b l e t h a t h e d o e s

n o t h a v e t h e c e r t i f i c a t e s o f t l t l e r e f e r r e d t o by M r F e r r l e r

i n t h e a f f i d a v i t . I do n o t t h l n k t h a t it would be proper

f o r t h e c o u t t o make o r d e r a n r I n s p e c t t h e o f

c e r t l f l c a t e s of t l t l e u n t i l Mr Van H a e f f h a s had f u l l

oppor tun i ty of p l ac ing be fo re t he cour t ev idence on oa th

t h a t he does not have them. Accordingly, al though M r Van

Haeff has no t f i l ed any ev idence , I p r o p o s e t o now o f f e r h i m

I 7.

I

$he oppor tun i ty o f go ing in to the wi tnes s box and v e r l f y i n g

c

o n o a t h , p o s s e s s i o n i f h e w i s h e s so t o d o , t h a t h e d o e s n o t have

o f t h e c e r t l f i c a t e s . M r Van Haeff y o u h a v e

heard what I s a i d a b o u t t h e c e r t l f i c a t e s of t i t l e . I f you

w i s h t o s t a t e on o a t h t h a t you do not have them, or you do

not know where	they	a re ,	you may	do so now.	D o you wish t o
d o t h a t ?

MR VAN HAEFF: YES

REPORTED NOT TRANSCRIBED

HIS HONOUR : I have no d o u b t h a t h i s 1 s a proper case

f o r t h e making of o r d e r s 1 and 3 as sought i n t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n .

A s t o o r d e r 2 , Mr Van Haeff has worn i n t h e

w i t n e s s b o x t h a t h e now d o e s n o t h a v e p o s s e s s l o n o f t h e

c e r t i f i c a t e s o f t i t l e and tha t he gave them t o t h e Church of

Independent Real l ty with whlch he apparent ly has some

a s s o c i a t i o n .

I am.not a t a l l persuaded a t t h e moment t h a t Mr Van

Haeff would c e r t i f i c a t e s i f h e t o o k d i l i g e n t s t e p s t o not be able t o g a m p o s s e s s i o n of t hose

do so.

>ccord ingly I p r o p o s e a l s o t make o rde r 2 .

C .

However s h o u l d h e f i n d a f t e r making d l l i g e n t s e a r c h t h a t t h e

documents cannot be found, I h a v e l l t t l e d o u b t t h a t t h e

t r u s t e e would n o t s e e k t o e n f o r c e o r d e r 2 . I f h e d i d and

t h e f a c t s were pu t be fo re t he cour t , t he cou r t would not

t a k e any a c t i o n i n respect of non-compllance with order 2 i f

it w e r e documents and s a t l s f i e d t h a t M r Van Haeff d i d n o t h a v e t h e

t h a t t h e y were not under h is cont ro l .

I n making t h a t s t a t e m e n t , I am n o t t o b e t a k e n , M r

Van H a e f f , a s i n v l t i n g you n o t t o make a d i l i g e n t s e a r c h for

those documents, because if you do not , then you could be a t

r isk o f f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h l s c o u r t .