Schiffer v Pattison - [2001] FCA 1094

Schiffer v Pattison [2001] FCA 1094
Administrative Law - Bankruptcy

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Schiffer v Pattison [2001] FCA 1094

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - appeal under s 44(1) of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) - litigant in person - whether Tribunal failed to afford procedural fairness - whether Tribunal failed in any duty to advise of the nature of the decision under review and of review rights - whether Tribunal required to adjourn hearing or advise applicant of right to seek an adjournment - whether Tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations - whether Tribunal may consider evidence not relied on by the primary decision-maker - function of the Tribunal - oral reasons for decision under s 43(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act

BANKRUPTCY - notice of objection to discharge -whether Tribunal failed to discharge its statutory task in reviewing trustee's decision

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 149B, s 149Q

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 25 s 37, s 43, s 44

Schiffer v Pattison (2000) 177 ALR 754 referred

Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323 applied

Titan v Babic (1994) 49 FCR 546 applied

Inspector-General v Nelson (1998) 86 FCR 67 discussed

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 referred

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577 applied

Fitz-Gibbon v Inspector-General in Bankruptcy [2000] FCA 1677 followed

Re Woodman & Inspector-General in Bankruptcy (1996) 22 AAR 508 referred

Re Hall (1994) 14 ACSR 488 distinguished

Re Ansett; Ex parte Ansett v Pattison (1995) 56 FCR 526 distinguished

Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 applied

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 applied

HORST DIETER SCHIFFER v PAUL PATTISON

V 490 of 1999

KENNY J

10 AUGUST 2001

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 490 OF 1999

BETWEEN: HORST DIETER SCHIFFER
Applicant
AND: PAUL PATTISON
Respondent

JUDGE:
KENNY J
DATE OF ORDER: 10 AUGUST 2001
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application, including reserved costs.

BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion, notice of which was dated 15 October 1999.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V490 OF 1999

BETWEEN: HORST DIETER SCHIFFER
Applicant
AND: PAUL PATTISON
Respondent

JUDGE: KENNY J
DATE: 10 AUGUST 2001
PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The applicant, Mr Horst Dieter Schiffer, filed a statement of affairs on 12 July 1995. As a consequence, by virtue of s 149(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ("the Act"), he would, in the ordinary course, have been discharged from bankruptcy on 13 July 1998. On 7 July 1998, however, the respondent, who is Mr Schiffer's trustee in bankruptcy, filed a notice…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Schiffer v Pattison

Details

AGLC: Schiffer v Pattison [2001] FCA 1094 Administrative Law - Bankruptcy
Case: [2001] FCA 1094
Decision Date: 10 AUGUST 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Schiffer v Pattison, the Federal Court dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The appellant, Schiffer, had been bankrupt since 12 July 1995. The respondent, Pattison, was appointed as the trustee of Schiffer's bankrupt estate. On 7 July 1998, Pattison filed a notice of objection to Schiffer's discharge from bankruptcy on the basis that Schiffer had failed to pay an assessment and had failed to disclose his income or expected income. Schiffer applied to the AAT for review of Pattison's decision. The AAT affirmed Pattison's decision, and Schiffer appealed to the Federal Court. The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the AAT had not failed to afford Schiffer procedural fairness, had not given erroneous consideration to irrelevant material, and had not failed in its statutory task. The Court found that there was no satisfactory evidence before the AAT that would lead it to interfere with Pattison's decision. The Court also held that the AAT's reasons for its decision were sufficient.

Orders