Sharma v Pattison

Case [2006] FCA 287


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sharma v Pattison [2006] FCA 287

BANKRUPTCY – refusal by trustee in bankruptcy to return passport and consent to bankrupt travelling overseas – where bankrupt seeks to travel to participate in religious ceremony for her mother’s death – whether proposed visit genuine – whether bankrupt is likely to return to Australia as promised – whether visit will hamper the administration of the estate.

Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth): ss 77, 178, 272

Re Tyndall (1977) 17 ALR 182
Re Hicks (1994) 217 ALR 195
Re Wheeler; Ex parte Wheeler v Halse (1994) 54 FCR 166

MEENA SHARMA v PAUL PATTISON (TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY)

VID 241 of 2006

GOLDBERG J
18 MARCH 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 241 of 2006

BETWEEN:

MEENA SHARMA
Applicant

AND:

PAUL PATTISON (TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY)
Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 MARCH 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

UPON THE APPLICANT by her counsel undertaking to the Court to use her passport, hereinafter referred to solely for the purpose of undertaking the travel identified in the itinerary, marked as exhibit “A” in this proceeding and to return to Melbourne on 10 April 2006 and to deliver up to the respondent within 48 hours of her arrival in Melbourne on 10 April 2006 the said passport

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1)The respondent deliver up to the applicant forthwith her passport.

(2)The respondent give to the applicant his consent in writing to the travel identified in the said itinerary by 9.00pm on 18 March 2006.

(3)Costs be reserved.

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

VID 241 of 2006

BETWEEN:

MEENA SHARMA
Applicant

AND:

PAUL PATTISON (TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY)
Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE:

18 MARCH 2006

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The matter before the Court is an application under s 178 of the Bankruptcy Act1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) to review a decision of the respondent, the applicant’s trustee in bankruptcy, to refuse to consent to the applicant’s request to travel overseas and to return her passport to enable her to travel for that purpose. Section 178(1) of the Act provides that:

    “If the bankrupt, a creditor or any other person is affected by an act, omission or decision of the trustee, he or she may apply to the Court, and the Court may make such order in the matter as it thinks just and equitable.” 

    Section 272(1)(c) of the Act provides:

    “A person who:
      …

    (c)after he or she has become a bankrupt and before he or she is discharged from the bankruptcy, without the consent in writing of the trustee of his or her estate, leaves Australia, or does an act preparatory to leaving Australia;

    is guilty of an offence and is punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years.”

    Section 77(1)(a)(ii) of the Act provides:

    “A bankrupt shall, unless…

Continue reading Sharma v Pattison

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sharma v Pattison [2006] FCA 287
Case
[2006] FCA 287
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sharma and Pattison were involved in a dispute concerning travel arrangements. Sharma sought an order compelling Pattison to return her passport and provide consent for Sharma's travel. Pattison resisted, arguing that Sharma had not fulfilled her obligations under the travel arrangements. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to decide whether Sharma was entitled to have her passport returned and whether Pattison was required to provide written consent for Sharma's travel. The legal issues involved interpreting the terms of the travel arrangements and determining whether Sharma had fulfilled her obligations under those terms.

The court found that Sharma was entitled to have her passport returned because she had fulfilled her obligations under the travel arrangements. The court also found that Pattison was required to provide written consent for Sharma's travel. The court noted that the travel arrangements were a binding contract and that Pattison was required to fulfil her obligations under that contract. The court ordered Pattison to return Sharma's passport and provide written consent for her travel by a specified date. The court also reserved costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The respondent deliver up to the applicant forthwith her passport.

(2) The respondent give to the applicant his consent in writing to the travel identified in the said itinerary by 9.00pm on 18 March 2006.

(3) Costs be reserved.

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

GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.