Wenkart v Pantzer

[2003] FCA 364

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wenkart v Pantzer [2003] FCA 364

BANKRUPTCY – trustee’s remuneration and costs – annulment of bankruptcy – effect of consent orders upon the application of statutory provisions allowing for taxation of costs.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

THOMAS RICHARD WENKART V WARREN PANTZER (FORMER TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS RICHARD WENKART)

N 7051 OF 2002

BEAUMONT J
14 APRIL 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7051 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	THOMAS RICHARD WENKART APPLICANT
AND:	WARREN PANTZER (FORMER TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS RICHARD WENKART) RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
DATE OF ORDER:	14 APRIL 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The separate question ordered today, 14 April 2003, be answered as follows:

Q.Having regard to the provisions of the consent order made herein on 11 March 2002 and to the annulment of the applicant’s bankruptcy on 15 March 2002, do the provisions of s 167 of the Bankruptcy Act continue to apply in accordance with their terms?

A.       Yes.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 7051 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	THOMAS RICHARD WENKART APPLICANT
AND:	WARREN PANTZER (FORMER TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS RICHARD WENKART) RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J
DATE:	14 APRIL 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (NO. 2)

BEAUMONT J:

INTRODUCTION

1. In my reasons published on 9 April 2003 I outlined some of the background of this matter, which I need not repeat.  At the end of those reasons, having dealt with the separate question then ordered, I indicated that I will hear further argument today on the way in which the matter should now be managed.  A number of matters have been argued before me this morning but they include one question of law which, in my opinion, arises as a preliminary question and I propose to order that it be dealt with as a separate question raising, as it does, a question which is not only separate, but preliminary to the further consideration of the matter generally.

2. The question which I now order to be determined, as a separate question, is this.  Whether, having regard to the provisions of the consent order made herein on 11 March 2002 and to the annulment of the applicant’s bankruptcy on 15 March 2002, the provisions of s 167 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) continue to apply in accordance with their terms. 

3. Section 167 of the Act deals with taxation of costs. It provides a machinery for the taxation of costs for services provided by a person in relation to the administration of the estate. By s 167(1), it is provided that the trustee may require such a bill of costs for services so provided to be taxed by a taxing officer and the trustee may make that “requirement on the trustee’s own initiative or at the request of the…