Turner v Griggs

[2005] FCA 1911

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Turner v Griggs [2005] FCA 1911

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 179(1)

JAMES GEORGE TURNER v PHILLIP JOHN GRIGGS & ORS

NO TAD 56 OF 2005

HEEREY J
7 DECEMBER 2005
HOBART

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY	TAD 56 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	JAMES GEORGE TURNER APPLICANT
AND:	PHILLIP JOHN GRIGGS FIRST RESPONDENT
OFFICIAL RECEIVER (TASMANIA) SECOND RESPONDENT
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 DECEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	HOBART

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY	TAD 56 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	JAMES GEORGE TURNER APPLICANT
AND:	PHILLIP JOHN GRIGGS FIRST RESPONDENT
OFFICIAL RECEIVER (TASMANIA) SECOND RESPONDENT
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 DECEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	HOBART

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant, Mr James George Turner, applies under s 179(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) for an order that the Court inquire into the conduct of the official receiver and official trustee. Mr Turner was made bankrupt on two occasions, the first on 15 June 1987 and the second 29 August 1994. He has since been discharged from both bankruptcies. Section 179(1) provides:

   “The Court may on the application of the Inspector General, a creditor or the bankrupt inquire into the conduct of a trustee in relation to a bankruptcy and may do one or both of the following: 

   (a) remove the trustee from office and; 

   (b) make such order as it thinks proper.”

2. In support of this application Mr Turner, who appears for himself, has sworn a lengthy affidavit of some 358 paragraphs.  It canvasses very many alleged incidents involving many third parties.  It makes allegations of conduct, in some instances criminal and in other instances tortious.  The Court has a discretion under s 179 as to whether to order an inquiry.  One relevant factor it seems to me is that the purpose of the provision does seem to be to consider whether or not an inquiry would result in a removal of the trustee from office.  That cannot occur in the present case because the trustee has advised that Mr Turner has been discharged from both bankruptcies.

3. I take into account also that many years have passed since the various matters complained of have occurred.  If what Mr Turner says is true there are matters which he can complain of to the police or, insofar as they are civil matters, he can institute civil proceedings subject to any problem that may arrive with statutes of limitation.  All in all, I think this is not an appropriate case for the order of an inquiry and the application is dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey.

Associate:

Dated:             7 December 2005

Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf.
Counsel for the Respondents:	A Perkins
Solicitor for the Respondents:	PWB Lawyers
Date of Hearing:	7 December 2005
Date of Judgment:	7 December 2005