Rocom International Pty Ltd v Prentice

Case [2002] FCA 604


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rocom International Pty Ltd v Prentice [2002] FCA 604

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time within which to file an application seeking review of the Trustee’s decision to reject proof of debt lodged by applicant liquidator – considerations relevant to extension of time – time for lodging application under s 104 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) runs from date decision on proof of debt is made - whether application by liquidator is without foundation – whether prejudice – delay in lodging proof of debt

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 33, 104

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 588G

Re CLUBB; Ex parte CLUBB v Westpac Banking Corporation (1990) 93 ALR 123 cited
Gallo v Dawson (1990) 93 ALR 479 cited
Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 referred to

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ROBIN JACK KNIGHT (BANKRUPT)

ROCOM INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v
MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE (TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE)

N 7093 of 2002

TAMBERLIN J
SYDNEY
17 MAY 2002


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7093 OF 2002

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ROBIN JACK KNIGHT (BANKRUPT)

BETWEEN:

ROCOM INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED
(IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 060 789 111
APPLICANT

AND:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
(TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 MAY 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application for extension of time is granted.

2.Costs be awarded in accordance with the outcome of the hearing of the application for review.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 7093 OF 2002

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ROBIN JACK KNIGHT (BANKRUPT)

BETWEEN:

ROCOM INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED
(IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 060 789 111
APPLICANT

AND:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE
(TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

TAMBERLIN J

DATE:

17 MAY 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. In this matter I made orders on 7 May 2002 granting an extension of time under s 33(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) for the applicant to file an application brought pursuant to s 104 of the Act, to 5 April 2002 and I have also ordered that the costs of this application be paid in accordance with the outcome of the application. I now deliver my reasons.

  2. The application under s 104 of the Act is to review and reverse the decision of the trustee respondent to reject a proof of debt lodged by the applicant liquidator who has been appointed to wind up the company of which the bankrupt was a former director. The claim of the liquidator is that the bankrupt is liable under s 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in respect of trading by the company whilst insolvent.

  3. An exhaustive catalogue of considerations relevant to an application for extension of time…

Continue reading Rocom International Pty Ltd v Prentice

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rocom International Pty Ltd v Prentice [2002] FCA 604
Case
[2002] FCA 604
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rocom International Pty Ltd, as liquidator of a company, sought an extension of time to file an application for review of a decision by the Trustee to reject a proof of debt. The dispute came before the court to determine whether the liquidator's application for an extension of time should be granted. The primary issue before the court was whether the application for an extension of time was without foundation and whether the delay in lodging the proof of debt had prejudiced the Trustee. Additionally, the court had to consider the considerations relevant to granting an extension of time.

The court found that the liquidator's application was not without foundation and that there was no evidence of prejudice to the Trustee. The court also held that the time for lodging an application for review under section 104 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) runs from the date the decision on the proof of debt is made. The court was satisfied that the delay in lodging the proof of debt was due to the liquidator's error in not realising the time limit until shortly before it expired. The court granted the application for an extension of time and awarded costs in accordance with the outcome of the hearing of the application for review.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for extension of time is granted.

2. Costs be awarded in accordance with the outcome of the hearing of the application for review.

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

TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TAMBERLIN J

Full text does not contain this section.