Re Ansett, R.G. v. Ex parte Pattison, P.A. & Ors [1994] FCA 998

Re Ansett, R.G. v. Ex parte Pattison, P.A. & Ors [1994] FCA 998

Paragraphs other than paragraph 5 were struck out because the challenged assessment matters had already been subject to review and appeal processes, there was no arguable case of perverse or deliberate delay by the trustee, and inquiries into the trustee's earlier reasons would serve no useful purpose. Paragraph 5 was not struck out because s 178 declaratory jurisdiction was not necessarily excluded and the challenge was confined to formal invalidity of the notice of objection to discharge, relief which the AAT could not grant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceeding / Application to Strike Out Paragraphs of the Application Dated 3 November 1994
Outcome
Application allowed in part; paragraphs of the application dated 3 November 1994 other than paragraph 5 were struck out.
Legal Topics
['bankrupt Estate Administration' 'income Contribution Assessments' 'review by Inspector General and Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'objection to Discharge' 'declaratory Relief Under S 178']
['bankruptcy' 'administrative Law'] ['bankrupt Estate Administration' 'income Contribution Assessments' 'review by Inspector General and Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'objection to Discharge' 'declaratory Relief Under S 178']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceeding / Application to Strike Out Paragraphs of the Application Dated 3 November 1994

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs of the application concerning assessments already reviewed or appealed should be struck out.' 'Whether delay in making 1994 and 1995 assessments gave rise to an arguable case that the trustee had acted, or would act, perversely or deliberately to prejudice the debtor.' 'Whether jurisdiction to grant declarations under s 178 is excluded by specific administrative review provisions.' "Whether paragraph 5, confined to a formal invalidity challenge to the trustee's notice of objection to discharge, should remain on foot."]

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs other than paragraph 5 were struck out because the challenged assessment matters had already been subject to review and appeal processes, there was no arguable case of perverse or deliberate delay by the trustee, and inquiries into the trustee's earlier reasons would serve no useful purpose. Paragraph 5 was not struck out because s 178 declaratory jurisdiction was not necessarily excluded and the challenge was confined to formal invalidity of the notice of objection to discharge, relief which the AAT could not grant.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; paragraphs of the application dated 3 November 1994 other than paragraph 5 were struck out.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs of the application dated 3 November 1994, other than paragraph 5, are struck out.']