Wenkart v Pantzer (No 6)

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wenkart v Pantzer (No 6) [2003] FCA 1210

BANKRUPTCY – remuneration of trustee in bankruptcy – application by former bankrupt for extension of time in which to request that former trustee’s claim for remuneration be taxed – discretionary considerations – extension of time refused.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ss 33(1)(c), 162(4)
Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) regs 8.08, 8.09

Bellin v Pattison (Trustee) [1999] FCA 51 referred to

THOMAS RICHARD WENKART v WARREN PANTZER

N 7051 of 2002

LINDGREN J
29 OCTOBER 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
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 OCTOBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s motion brought by notice of motion filed on 12 December 2002, in so far as it is found in par 8 of that document, be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

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
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE:

29 OCTOBER 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (No 6)
(Application for Extension of Time)

INTRODUCTION

  1. These reasons for judgment relate to par 8 of a notice of motion filed on 12 December 2002 by the applicant (‘Dr Wenkart’). The respondent (‘Mr Pantzer’) is the former trustee of the estate in bankruptcy of Dr Wenkart. Mr Pantzer claims remuneration, relevantly, in respect of services rendered by him as trustee in the period from 30 January 2001 to 15 March 2002. On the latter date, the bankruptcy of Dr Wenkart was annulled on the passing of a special resolution at a meeting of his creditors under subs 73(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (‘the Act’): subs 74(5) of the Act. Being dissatisfied with the amount of Mr Pantzer’s claim, Dr Wenkart requested a taxing officer to tax the claim, but did so outside the 14-day period then allowed by reg 8.09(1) of the Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’).

  2. By par 8 of his notice of motion, Dr Wenkart seeks an order that the time allowed by reg 8.09(1) be extended to a period of 14 days from the making of the order granting the extension.

  3. It is not in dispute that the Court has power under s 33(1)(c) of the Act to grant the extension:  cf Bellin v Pattison (Trustee) [1999] FCA 51 (‘Bellin’), esp at [27].

    LEGISLATION

  4. Section 162 of the Act provides for the fixing of the remuneration of a trustee of the estate of a bankrupt by resolution of the creditors, or, if they so resolve, by the creditors’ committee of inspection. Subsection 162(4) provides:

    ‘Where the remuneration of the trustee is not fixed by the creditors or the committee of inspection, the trustee is to be…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wenkart v Pantzer (No 6) 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
[2003] FCA 1210
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved Dr Wenkart as the applicant and Mr Pantzer as the respondent, with the matter being heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around an application by Dr Wenkart to extend the time limit for commencing a proceeding, specifically an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The application was made under section 35A of the Judiciary Act 1903, which allows for the extension of time if it is just and equitable to do so. The court was tasked with determining whether the time limit should be extended and if the extension was justified under the statutory provisions.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the applicant, Dr Wenkart, had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the extension of the time limit for initiating the appeal. This required an assessment of whether the delay in filing the appeal was unreasonable, and if there were any circumstances that warranted an extension of time under section 35A of the Judiciary Act 1903. The court also had to consider whether Dr Wenkart had acted with due diligence in pursuing the appeal and whether the delay had caused any prejudice to the respondent.

The court found that Dr Wenkart had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that Dr Wenkart had been aware of the need to lodge an appeal within the specified time frame but had failed to do so. The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of the time limit. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time, concluding that it was not just and equitable to allow the delay. The court ordered that the application be dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s motion brought by notice of motion filed on 12 December 2002, in so far as it is found in par 8 of that document, be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s 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

LINDGREN J
Dr Wenkart has not discharged the onus of persuading me that the time limit should not be allowed to operate in the ordinary way and with its ordinary effect in this case.CONCLUSION The motion, insofar as it is found in par 8 of Dr Wenkart’s notice of motion filed 12 December 2002, should be dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LINDGREN J

Full text does not contain this section.