FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Thompson v Lane (Trustee) [2021] FCA 1078
File number: QUD 113 of 2021 Judgment of: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 28 July 2021 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for production of documents pursuant to r 20.31(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – whether applicant is entitled to production of documents pursuant to r 20.31(1) – whether affidavit contains a “mention” or “reference” to a document – where documents either produced, would be produced by the trustee in bankruptcy shortly, or not a document mentioned – interlocutory application dismissed Legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) s 153B
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 20.31
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 222
Cases cited: GSM (Operations) Pty Ltd v Suwenda [2010] QSC 33
King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2001] FCA 1487
Quilter v Heatly (1883) 23 Ch D 42
Smith v Harris (1883) 48 LT 869
Division: General Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency Number of paragraphs: 32 Date of hearing: 28 July 2021 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Solicitor for the Respondent: Shand Taylor Lawyers Solicitor for the First Interested Person: Grace Lawyers Solicitor for the Second Interested Person: The Second Interested Person did not appear ORDERS
QUD 113 of 2021 BETWEEN: EMMA NARELLE CATHRYN THOMPSON
Applicant
AND: MORGAN LANE AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE OF EMMA NARELLE CATHRYN THOMPSON
Respondent
BODY CORPORATE FOR ARILA LODGE CTS 14237
Interested Person
MAHONEYS
Interested Person
ORDER MADE BY:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 JULY 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The interlocutory application be dismissed.
2.The costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application be the Trustee’s costs in the proceedings.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)LOGAN J:
By an application filed on 14 April 2021, Ms Emma Narelle Cathryn Thompson (Ms Thompson), a bankrupt, has made application pursuant to s 153B(1) and (2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1996 (Cth) for an order that her bankruptcy be annulled pursuant to that section on the grounds that her debtor’s petition ought not to have been presented and ought not to have been accepted by the Official Receiver and that a sequestration order made on 1 July 2020 should not have been made.
That application has been hitherto case managed by another judge, but more recently allocated to my docket. The annulment application has been set down for hearing on Monday 2 August 2021. In the course of preparing her case in respect of the annulment application, Ms Thompson formed the view that she was entitled pursuant to r 20.31(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to the production of particular documents mentioned in an affidavit of her trustee in bankruptcy, Mr Morgan Gerard James Lane, filed on 15 July 2021.
The notice is in these terms:
1.The Report prepared by the Costs Assessor,…
Continue reading Thompson v Lane (Trustee)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Thompson v Lane (Trustee) [2021] FCA 1078
- Case
- [2021] FCA 1078
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of rule 20.31(1) and (3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011. Specifically, the Court needed to determine whether Thompson's affidavit contained a sufficient "mention" or "reference" to the documents that would necessitate their production. Additionally, the Court considered whether the documents had already been produced, would be produced shortly, or did not fall under the category of documents mentioned in Thompson's affidavit.
In its reasoning, the Court found that Thompson's affidavit did not contain a sufficient "mention" or "reference" to the documents in question, as required by rule 20.31(1). Furthermore, the Court concluded that the documents were either already produced, would be produced shortly, or did not fit the criteria of documents mentioned in Thompson's affidavit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the interlocutory application. The Court also ordered that the costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application be borne by the Trustee in the proceedings.
The Court's decision was based on the strict interpretation of the rules and the lack of specificity in Thompson's affidavit regarding the documents in question. The Court emphasised the importance of clear and precise references to documents in such applications, and the necessity for the applicant to ensure that their affidavits meet the requirements set out in the relevant rules.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The interlocutory application be dismissed.
2. The costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application be the Trustee’s costs in the proceedings.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.