Singh v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy
[2010] FMCA 1010
•1 November 2010
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SINGH v OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY | [2010] FMCA 1010 |
| BANKRUPTCY – Application for leave to travel to India – insufficient reason for travel – insufficient grounds to give confidence about his return – bankrupt has failed to comply with obligation to provide Statement of Affairs – application dismissed. |
| Applicant: | MOHINDER SINGH |
| Respondent: | OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF MOHINDER SINGH |
| File Number: | MLG 1401 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | O’Dwyer FM |
| Hearing date: | 1 November 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 1 November 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 1 November 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In person |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Mr Lhuede |
ORDERS
The application filed on 1 November 2010 is dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent's costs.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 1401 of 2010
| MOHINDER SINGH |
Applicant
And
| OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF MOHINDER SINGH |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
This matter comes before me today as an urgent application by the applicant, Mr Singh, to seek permission to travel overseas for a period of one month. In support of his application, he has sworn an affidavit which sets out, in some considerable detail, a long history of litigation between himself and various other parties, all centred around payments he was paid by Centrelink and WorkCover. The crux of the issue is that, having successfully obtained compensation for a serious injury, as I understand it, arising out of his employment, he was then required to repay Centrelink those payments that had been made.
He disputed his obligation to make those payments, so litigation ensued. Litigation that has embroiled the applicant at various levels of the judicial system, which ultimately for him was unsuccessful.
There is presently on foot an attempt now by Mr Singh to challenge the underlying debt that is said to be owed in circumstances where, after a sequestration order was made, an appeal lodged was unsuccessful and then a further application to the High Court for leave to appeal to that Court was also unsuccessful.
Mr Singh's bankruptcy is still extant. The prospect, as I understand it from his own material and, indeed, from what has been said to me from the bar table, of him successfully challenging the underpinning judgments in this matter has no reasonable prospect of success.
In the affidavit in support it is necessary for the applicant to set out his reasons for travel and also those reasons why I can take some confidence that he would return as he says on 4 December 2010. Those reasons are not sufficient to satisfy me about any concerns he may not return. As I said, what is spelt out is the history of the litigation. He tells me from the bar table, however, that he wishes to go on a religious pilgrimage to India; but he is very unspecific as to where he will go, he will just “travel around a bit”. It appears that his son will be going with him. His son, who is an accountancy student, must return to Australia in order to partake in his work placement for his course some time after 4 December 2010. Also his daughter is to graduate from medicine some time after 4 December 2010. He says for all these reasons he should be allowed to go because he will be coming back to partake in, if nothing else, the graduation of his daughter.
However, I am advised that a Statement of Affairs has not been filed. The Trustee has lodged a caveat over the only property disclosed, but it is vacant land the value of which is unknown. Because of the failure over some time and despite many requests to lodge a Statement of Affairs, The Official Trustee is, in effect, in the dark at this stage as to his financial affairs.
There is a summons on foot to seek a penalty against Mr Singh for not complying with his obligation to file a Statement of Affairs. It appears also that the decision to travel to India was determined only a few days after this summons was served on him.
In short there appears to be no basis whatsoever provided by the applicant that would justify the order he seeks and there is a history of none compliance with his legal obligations imposed by the Act.
I intend to dismiss the application.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of O’Dwyer FM.
Date: 1 November 2010
0
0
0