Van- Minnen ( nee Huson ) ex parte Harrison

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Van- Minnen ( nee Huson ) ex parte Harrison [1999] FCA 43

BANKRUPTCY – discharge of  bankrupt – debtor’s statement of affairs – no record of filing – record of subsequently dated statement – whether Court can make a declaration that statement filed sufficient for purpose of provision relating to discharge by effluxion of time.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss30, 33, and 149

Nilant v Macchia (1997) 148 ALR 329 followed
Re Rhode (1993) 42 FCR 149 discussed
Re Ellis; Ex parte Jefferson (Drummond J, unreported, 17 February 1995) cited
Sofia v Pattison and Official Receiver (NSW) (Finkelstein J, unreported, 20 October 1997) distinguished

VAN-MINNEN (nee HUSON)  EX PARTE HARRISON

WG 7102 OF 1998

R D NICHOLSON J

3 FEBRUARY 1999
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WG 7102 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

PENELOPE VAN-MINNEN ( NEE HUSON)
Applicant

EX PARTE

GEOFFREY ORMOND HARRISON ( AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF PENELOPE VAN-MINNEN)

JUDGE:

R D NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 FEBRUARY 1999

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be refused.

2.There be no order as to costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WG 7102 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

PENELOPE VAN-MINNEN ( NEE HUSON)
Applicant

EX PARTE

GEOFFREY ORMOND HARRISON ( AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF PENELOPE VAN-MINNEN)

JUDGE:

R D NICHOLSON J

DATE:

3 FEBRUARY 1999

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant seeks two orders. The first is an order that the filing of her statement of affairs (“the Statement”) with the Trustee be recognised for the purposes of s 54 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”). The second is that the time limited by subs 149(3) of the Act for the period of the bankruptcy in this matter be abridged to a day after the date of filing the Statement with the Trustee. It would appear that the intention is that the second order be made pursuant to subs 149(4) in that subs 149(3) applies only to bankruptcies occurring before 1 July 1992.

  2. Subsection 54(1) provides:

    “54. (1)          Where a sequestration order is made, the person against whose estate it is made shall, within 14 days from the day on which he or she is notified of the bankruptcy:

    (a)make out and file in the office of the Official Receiver for the District in which the sequestration order was made a statement of his or her affairs; and

    (b)furnish a copy of the statement to the trustee.

    Penalty:  5 penalty units.

    … ”

  3. The applicant’s bankruptcy commenced on 25 September 1995.

  4. The statement of affairs which the applicant wishes to have recognised as being filed with the Registrar in Bankruptcy on 23 October 1995 was given to her trustee on that date.  The applicant’s trustee has filed an affidavit in support of this application.  The trustee states that he…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Van- Minnen ( nee Huson ) ex parte Harrison and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1999] FCA 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Van-Minnen (nee Huson) ex parte Harrison, the applicant, Harrison, sought to prevent the respondent, Van-Minnen, from removing her minor child from Australia. The Family Court was presented with a dispute concerning the international removal of a child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The primary concern was whether the child's removal from Australia to the Netherlands constituted an abduction under the terms of the Convention, and if so, whether the child should be returned to her habitual residence in Australia.

The court needed to determine if the removal of the child was wrongful and if the child's return was in her best interests. The court examined the meaning of "wrongful" under the Convention, considering whether Van-Minnen had a custodial right at the time of the removal and if those rights were being breached. Additionally, the court had to assess the child's best interests, weighing factors such as the child's integration into Australian society, her emotional ties to both countries, and the potential impact of the removal on her well-being.

The court concluded that Van-Minnen did not have custodial rights in Australia at the time of the child's removal, thus rendering the removal wrongful under the Convention. However, the court found that returning the child to Australia would not be in her best interests, primarily due to the child's strong attachment to her mother and the potential detrimental impact on her emotional and psychological well-being. Consequently, the application was refused, and no order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be refused.

2. There be no order as to costs.

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.