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) distinguishedVAN-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)
ApplicantEX 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)
ApplicantEX 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
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.
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.
… ”
The applicant’s bankruptcy commenced on 25 September 1995.
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1999] FCA 43
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.